Sitting of 10 December 1993

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

  Heathrow (Road and Rail Links)
  9.34 am
  Mr. Alan Keen: It is with pride that I present a petition signed by 3,433 of my constituents in Feltham, Heston, Hanworth and people in the surrounding areas. They live adjacent to Heathrow airport and are proud to support one of Britain's major industries, but they suffer great environmental problems such as noise and regard the Department of Transport's proposals to drive a new road and rail link straight through one of the last remaining green areas south of Heathrow as completely unacceptable. They ask the Minister to completely reject the Heathrow access south-west quadrant proposals and begin consultations with local people and councillors.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House disregard this study and seek further study by working with local authorities and people concerned.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Rutland Park Mansions
  9.35 am
  Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East): I have a petition from the residents of Rutland Park Mansions and the surrounding community. Those residents face eviction in the week before Christmas by the council, which seeks to demolish the block and replace it with housing for half the number of current residents.
  The petitioners, being residents of Rutland Park Mansions and their supporters, declare that the present conflict with Brent council is to be regretted. The Rutlanders urgently declare their wish to offer their plan as a working model of urban sustainable living to the good people of Willesden Green and the councillors of Brent. It is believed that the implementation of the community plan for Rutland Park Mansions would provide a valuable resource within the terms of the Agenda 21 initiative of the Rio Earth summit conference in 1992.
  Wherefore your Petitioners therefore humbly request that the House of Commons appoint a person of good standing to mediate between the Rutlanders and Brent Council, so that the Rutlanders' plan may be heard and understood by the council and the local population.
  To lie upon the Table.

Business and Industry
9.36 am
Sir Donald Thompson: I wish to call attention to business and industry; and I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on its Budget for business and industry, but reminds it that, if large and small firms are to prosper, create jobs, keep a clean environment and export, then each department of state must apply itself constantly to the needs of business and industry.
I was delighted to win the ballot for the debate. It is traditional in the Conservative party, and perhaps in the Labour party, that the Member whose name is drawn first out of the ballot should say, "No, please put it back; draw it again." I did not have that option; nor would I have wanted it. I thank the Whips for encouraging us all to sign the ballot books as frequently as possible.
I have had support from all sorts of people in the Mid-Yorkshire chamber of commerce, Kirklees council, Bradford airport support group, the CBI, the Food and Drink Federation, various schools, the Institute of Directors, all sorts of textile associations, private firms, banks and many more. It is always necessary to draw the attention of the Government to business and industry, because it is from business that all else flows. There is no doubt that our taxes—taxes on business and taxes on people's earnings and spending—should be as fairly distributed as possible and properly spent, but when there is no manufacturing and no trade, there can be no income, no inheritance and no future.
The Government are no different from other enterprise—whether a single entity, a farm, a small family business, a large business or a multinational business. All must keep control of their money; all must budget wisely. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has been almost universally judged by the communities interested in this debate as wise and fair.
The next sentence of my motion—at least, I imagine that it is a sentence because it starts with a capital letter—implores all Departments to bear in mind every day that trade, business and industry matter. It is obvious that Departments have to balance other needs and that is, no doubt, sometimes difficult. Health, education, social security, defence and the rest are all integrated. However, we shall have a stronger health service, more money for education, less to pay on social security, and more adaptable and better defence if our industries are strong and prospering.
It is a curious fact—this fact may not be relevant only to the United Kingdom—that the responsibilities that one would imagine rested entirely with the Department of Trade and Industry are spread out among the DTI and many other Departments. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food looks after the food and drink industry; the Department of the Environment looks after the construction industry; the Department of Health deals with pharmaceuticals; the Treasury tries to deal with the City; the Department of National Heritage has the tourism industry in its remit; the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempts to look after much of our trade overseas.
I hope to touch on each aspect of the motion. I am glad to see here my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Technology and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, who are both men of business and who have both worked. I am glad to see on the Opposition Benches the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for

603
Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), two colleagues from West Yorkshire who understand business and manufacturing industry, and their importance.
It is important that Members of Parliament have worked. A Tory grandee, a former Minister, visited Hebden Bridge one Friday. When he was asked what he had done besides being a Member of Parliament, he said, "I was Monty's aide-de-camp in the war. I went into advertising and then I went into Parliament." My friend said, "Oh, you have never worked then." People who have worked have a different attitude, and this debate is about work.
My own background is in three industries. I was a farmer in the 1950s, and a wholesale and retail butcher in the 1960s. From that grew a glass fibre manufacturing business, fabricating liners for the backs of vans and estate cars so that they could carry food cleanly. From that, the business moved into manufacturing bits for the building industry, for the caravan industry and for others.
My mother started work at the age of 12 in textiles in Liversedge and my father, who was a farmer, probably started work before he was 12 years old. My friends, whom I am lucky enough to see every weekend and with whom I was at school, are from every industry: textiles, dyeing, valve manufacturing, insurance, electronics, metal spinning, transport and banking.
My interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests. As I said, I was a butcher, and I represent butchers and catering manufacturers. As I said, I made glass fibre bits for the caravan industry and I do some work for that industry. I was a farmer and I do some work for the British Agricultural and Garden Machinery Association. There are companies, large and small, in engineering in my part of the world. All of them depend on the mining industry and on the nuclear industry. From time to time, I advise a cross-party team on nuclear matters through the Nuclear Forum. Naomi Arnold is an old pal of mine and I help her in her consultancy. It is perfectly right and proper that Members of Parliament should declare their interests. I am delighted that we have a Select Committee on Members' Interests which makes it easier for Members of Parliament to take up various interests and to broaden the base of knowledge in the House.
My speech is in three parts. The first deals with Calder Valley and Calderdale, and with its business and industrial base. The second part deals with the wider national scene and, if I have time, the third will deal with the international scene.
Calder Valley lies in West Yorkshire, with its boundary hard against Lancashire. To set the scene, unemployment in my constituency is, thankfully, at 6·7 per cent.—6 per cent. too much—and in Halifax, unemployment is at 9·7 per cent. By comparison, the figure for Belgium is 9·7 per cent., for Denmark it is 10·6 per cent., for France it is 11 per cent., for Ireland it is 18 per cent., for Italy it is 11 per cent. and for Spain it is 21 per cent. The United Kingdom national average is 10·3 per cent. and the EC average is 10·6 per cent.
However, a job is a job and being a statistic is not nice if one does not have a job—the more people in work, the better. I feel distress for all who look for work and who find none. The fact that the unemployment figure is falling
604
month by month proves to me that my constituents and others are actively looking for work and want work. The more work that can be provided, the better it will be.
The strength of Calder Valley is its historical diversity. There are textiles, wool, cotton, clothes manufacturing, engineering, foundries, metal benders, wire drawers, valve manufactures, fabricators, machine tools, clay pipes, furniture, carpets and trousers. We are fortunate to have such diversity.
Parts of South Yorkshire rely solely on mining, and the withdrawal of that industry has been devastating. It is difficult to overestimate the effect on a one-company town when that company is closed or that industry is withdrawn. No amount of aid rapidly repairs such a wrench, so I am doubly grateful for the diversity and adaptability of the people who work in my constituency and in West Yorkshire, and of its entrepreneurs.
The development agency that covers the rural part of my constituency tells me that it is amazed by the many different ideas that emerge from my part of the world. I am delighted that the development agency is to stay with my constituents. It does a remarkably good job on a very tight budget.
It is impossible to count the number of firms in my patch. They range from large multinationals to four-person firms. There are long-established family businesses, with grandfathers, sons and grandsons working in the firm; One example of that is Cinderhill Spinners in Todmorden. There are brand-new enterprises. All those firms are set in valleys that are made beautiful and kept beautiful by farmers.
The area increasingly attracts visitors who are catered for by a growing tourist industry. We are not an assisted area, although the development agency's writ runs in part. As one can imagine, in an area that was formerly highly industrialised—and still is—derelict land grants play a significant part. The EC periphery scheme is putting money back into Todmorden.
The tourism industry has benefited from improvements to the environment through various job creation schemes. When the schemes were envisaged as long as 10 years ago, they were pooh-poohed and sniffed at, but they have proved to be valuable in strengthening the environment, especially around the canals.
The use of the derelict land grant, which has just been sanctioned to be used on canals, will remove the last blockage in the Leeds-Rochdale canal at Sowerby Bridge. That will be boon to many people. With the help of Prince Charles, Business in the Community has led to amazing initiatives. A recent study called "Calderdale Inheritance Decade" celebrates those 10 successful years of activity. It is also celebrating the Calder Valley being put back on the map.
The local project has worked hard to motivate and initiative reinvestment and regeneration into our businesses. By reviving our heritage, it has provided a model of economic success for others to follow in both national and European programmes. That comes from the document "Calderdale Inheritance Decade", which was paid for by the DTI and is written by people from outside the area. In it, we are reminded of efforts combined with the Business in the Community initiative.
When the project was launched in 1984, it was a unique exmple of urban and economic regeneration. Nine years on, we are still proud to be supported by the Civic Trust, the Council of Europe and Prince Charles, all of whom

605
have visited Calderdale and have had an active part in our environment. I am lucky enough to serve as a member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union.
The Calderdale Inheritance started with the plan of enhancing the remarkable buildings of our towns to stimulate business interest. The approach has been unique by involving local business people and their ideas while promoting enterprise and the projects of Calderdale on a national level. We have had marvellous results and have attracted all sorts of businesses, new and old, which have chosen our valley in which to settle.
Through regeneration, large manufacturing businesses such as Hoechst, Volex, Warmans and Readicut International all feel safe to stay in our valley. They were not the only ones giving us a vote of confidence. Other businesses, ranging from the huge and significant Halifax building society to Eureka!—an experience for children which has been an immense success, and which was stimulated and financed by Vivienne Duffield—have also put Calderdale on the map, way ahead of much of its opposition.
In all, some £10 million has been raised and used to help business people and workers in our valley. Almost £3 million of that has been used in Brighouse, Ripponden, Elland and Sowerby Bridge. There is now a "Build a Better Brighouse" campaign. It is run by local people enthusiastically. It sounds amusing from here, but the people of Brighouse and the industries care. They want to live there. Whether one lives in Tower Hamlets or Brighouse, one should be able to do what one can to enhance the neighbourhood, and the Member of Parliament should occasionally—if he is lucky in the ballot—be able to crow about it. On behalf of Todmorden, in which £650,000 has gone in for improvement schemes, and Hebden Bridge with £460,000, I am doing a bit of crowing.
The initiative has been an outstanding success. It is a pity in some ways that the latest document has not been more whole-heartedly embraced by all sides of Calderdale council. I know that the DTI wanted—and still may want—to run a special seminar on the importance of the initiative in Calderdale. It has national and international significance. It can be copied in all sorts of areas—Wakefield and elsewhere—to strengthen the community.
Having said that, there are two spectres, both controversial, looming on the horizons of Calder Valley: opencast mining and wind farms. With the Clean Air Act 1956, which was one of the best bits of legislation to clean up the north of England that was ever introduced, and small-bore central heating, the whole of the industrial north was transformed. The smoke had gone from the streets and the hills, and houses of all sizes could be kept snug and warm for the first time.
There were no more cold bedrooms and no need to slide one's feet gently down the sheets at this time of the year, hoping that they would not be too cold. Small-bore central heating removed all that. The subsequent appreciation by more and more people of the industrial landscape and the reutilisation of former "dark Satanic mills" has led to a regeneration of our hills and valleys.
The friendly charm of once hard towns such as Hebden Bridge and Brighouse has lead to a growing self reliance and an increasing tourist industry. All that is now threatened by what can only be seen as no longer acceptable industrial scars. If one could have a modern anachronism, that is what an opencast mine on a moorland, or wind farms in the Pennines would be. The tearing up of
606
moorland for opencast mining and the implementation of giant wind farms, both of which are unwanted in a fragile setting, is unjustifiable in the minds of many of my constituents.
Wind farms are not only a Yorkshire problem. I have chosen the Western Mail, as the Welsh are further down that windy road than we are. In it, a Welshman man called Mario Basini [Laughter.]—there is always a little Celtic chip—writes:
'The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that eventually wind power could provide up to 10 per cent. of our electricity needs. To achieve that, Britain would need no less than 38,000 of these spare, space-age windmills, dotting 4,000 square kilometres of land or 1·7 per cent. of our already overcrowded land space."
He adds:
"Since Wales and Scotland have both the wind and empty high spaces needed to exploit it, many of the turbines will have to be located about there. Once again, many will argue Britain's Celtic Fringe will have to shoulder the disproportionate burden of supplying Britain's energy needs."
The Western Mail might not know that Yorkshire has always supplied a great deal of Britain's energy needs and still does, and does not want to share its wind farms with it. Mr. Basini says:
"Confronted with the prospect of these skeletal towers mushrooming all over our countryside, supporters will shrug and say, 'so what?'.
After all, this is an energy free from the poisonous pollutants of fossils. Its turbines are, friends argue, comparatively noise free—although there are many living close to the farms who fiercely contest that. Some claim to find these skeletal towers as pleasing modern sculpture.
Nothing better illustrates the truth of that old cliche, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.
I must admit that for me, confronting these monsters lining a hitherto unspoilt mountain ridge has much more to do with pain than pleasure.
They fit as naturally into the landscape as John Wyndham's Triffids."
I agree. I look out of the window of my golf club on to an ex-opencast site which has been beautifully restored—on grazing land rather than moorland. It is no use spending 10 years regenerating Calder Valley and the north and bringing in business from all over the world with the help of Prince Charles and the rest only to reimpose industrial dereliction.
Two other industries run a similar risk of vandalism. All industrial complexes and conurbations need to be able to dispose readily of waste food. Mink farming used to provide my constituency such a system: 20 per cent. of all farmed mink came from my constituency. Now much of the industry has been driven abroad to countries where it is not only welcome but receives industrial and EC state aid.
The second industry is the manufacture of sporting clothes, which is under direct and illegal threat from an uncaring minority. Caldene clothing—an old established-firm—and Elizabeth Greenwood's more recently established company export their riding gear worldwide. In recent times, those companies and their employees' jobs have been undermined by vicious groups whose clear agenda it is to attack the country sports, country living, equestrian sports, fishing and eventually even pet keeping. That phenomenon is threatening my constituency and my constituents. Compassion and a clean environment are to be secured by green policies, but it is as well to remember that green can be a chemical or a dyestuff and that, in either case, it must be applied wisely.
This summer, I visited innumerable businesses in my constituency. Their questions to me were not about exports

607
or manning levels but about crime and break-ins. The enemy of business is crime, both nationally and internationally, and we were all glad when the Home Secretary announced tht he would take tougher action against crooks. I hope that we shall do as well with City crooks and City fraudsters, because no one wants to work hard all his life for a pension and then be swindled out of it. To make working people unsure of what is happening to their pension fund and thus their future is a cruel thing to do.
Despite the downside, my manufacturing companies are ready to do battle in Europe and the rest of the world. There are a couple of sore spots in that regard, too. It seems that—as usual, some would say—we are depriving our businesses of legitimate trading opportunities. For example, a firm in my constituency that attended the November defence exhibition in Hungary found the French selling protective equipment to their hosts, which they are not allowed to do. That company would like at least to be able to open a marketing dialogue with such countries. I suppose that that is another example of things not being the DTI's problem: it is probably a problem for the Ministry of Defence. The fact remains, however, that my company's market is restricted, while its competitors can sell all over the world. There may be reasons for that, but I see very few.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that other member countries of the European Community have numerous hidden advantages? For example, British textile companies going abroad to exhibitions usually have to pay all the costs of attending and promoting their products. In Germany, on the other hand, the Lander—the regional governments—pay 100 per cent. of the costs incurred by German textile firms visiting exhibitions all over the world. The Government need to intervene positively to prevent other Common Market countries from exercising such considerable advantages.
Sir Donald Thompson: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would be here this morning, because he is interested in small business—indeed, he was once the Minister responsible for it. I also knew that he would mention textiles, although I am glad that he did not mention GATT, because I am coming to that.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the way in which we choose to fund the companies that go abroad to textile and high-tech exhibitions. A certain amount of rigidity has been creeeping into the selection of such companies and I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on a number of occasions about firms that have been bitterly disappointed that they have not been able to go to textile and engineering exhibitions.
There is a need, especially in the new Europe, for a constant dialogue between Whitehall—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is staying or going. He must either sit down or go out.
Sir Donald Thompson: It is not just one Department—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
Madam Deputy Speaker: May I make a point? The hon. Gentleman was standing near his place for a long time. I did not intervene until it was not at all clear whether he was coming or going. I am referring to the period before he moved That strangers do withdraw.
Notive having been taken that strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 20.

Division No. 25]

[10.06 am

AYES

Nil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

NOES

Arbuthnot, James

Malone, Gerald

Bates, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Batiste, Spencer

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Burns, Simon

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Shaw, David (Dover)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Dykes, Hugh

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

Hawksley, Warren

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Lightbown, David

Mr. Michael Brown and

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

It appearing from the report of the Division that 40 Members had not taken part in the Division, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the abysmal failure of the Tory Administration to organise themselves properly and to keep a quorum in the House, have you had any notification that the Prime Minister or a Minister will come to the House and give an explanation of how incompetent the Government are? In view of their failure to maintain their position in Parliament, there is a question whether they continue in Government.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Tory Government have failed to mobilise and organise within the House on a Friday morning, the day after they introduced a guillotine on two important Bills to be debated next week. It is disgraceful that they have gone away for their holidays, only to come back next week to guillotine two important Bills, which will cost people outside millions of pounds. The Tory Government should now resign.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are not matters for the Chair. I shall explain what the position now is in the light of the voting.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not expect to be interrupted while I am on my feet.
As fewer than 40 Members have taken part in the Division, the matter is not decided and strangers remain.

609
However, the rule of the House is that the business under discussion cannot continue. We therefore move to the next motion.

Budget procedures
10.18 am
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I beg to move:
That this House calls on the Procedure Committee to bring forward proposals so that in future years the House would no longer vote for or against the Budget, but would instead choose between alternative budgets put forward by both the Government and the Official Opposition, with the winning Budget proposals then going forward for consideration in Committee; that the Treasury would give full cooperation to the Opposition in the preparation of its Budget, and that in the event of the Official Opposition failing to take up this opportunity, it would fall to the third largest party to present the alternative Budget.
I have not prepared a long speech. The circumstances in which I have been called to address the House are extraordinary. I am in an almost unique position. A controversial motion—which could have been debated for not only one day, but two or three days—was tabled by a member of the governing party, with which I have had many disagreements. We now find that there are not enough Members of the governing party in the House, that that motion has fallen and that we move on to the motion standing in my name. I should be quite happy if, at some time today, the Prime Minister or a senior Minister arrived to announce the dissolution of Parliament and a general election, given the Government's failure to control the procedures of the House and to deliver their policies and prepared business.
I now offer the prospect of an interesting debate. Given the similarity between my motion and that tabled by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), I am sure that many hon. Members with speeches prepared for the first motion will find that most of them are in order on my motion. My motion is, after all, concerned with the Budget and the confidence that it engenders in industry and commerce.
I must inform the House that my motion does not reflect official Labour party policy. I feel strongly about the issue, but it is not formal policy that the rules of the House should be changed as I have suggested. Every year when we debate the Budget we find ourselves in a ridiculous position. There is always a major confrontation between the parties about the Government's taxation proposals, but confrontation is hardly adequate. In the aftermath of this year's disgraceful Budget, in which massive public spending cuts were made, the Opposition parties were merely able to oppose such cuts.
If the parties that seek to govern Britain genuinely believe that they are ready to take command of government for five years, they should be able to put forward genuine alternative proposals to the Budget. The British people would then witness not simply a debate in which the governing party of the day had its proposals attacked as inadequate, but one in which competing sets of proposals could be judged against one another. It would be a useful discipline for the official Opposition not simply to oppose the Government of the day, but to outline what they would do from day one, if elected.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I note that under my hon. Friend's motion the Government would be required to provide assistance to enable the Opposition to prepare their alternative Budget. That would be a great help to the Labour party, because it would be able to discover the extent of the maladministration and the enormity of the debt. We should be able to look at the books before we had

611
the opportunity to form the Government at the next general election. That assistance would also lead to greater openness—the Government have not achieved that, despite their many claims—and that would benefit the community.
Mr. Livingstone: I am delighted with that intervention. One of the problems that the Opposition face is that most of the detailed financial information available to the Government remains confidential to them. The advice given by senior civil servants in the Treasury is not revealed to Parliament, except in those brief exchanges at sittings of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, when it is possible to prise a few nuggets of information out of them. It would be of great benefit to the Government of the day and the Opposition if we were able to have more informed debate about the nation's finances.
If the Opposition were to have access to senior Treasury officials, we would know the true state of the nation's finances. That would mean that a Government in waiting would not make promises that could not be kept and repeat the mistakes that have sometimes been made. In 1964, for example, the incoming Labour Government knew that the financial position was bad, but, once in office, they found that it was infinitely worse than predicted.
Lord Callaghan says in his autobiography that on his first day as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was sitting at the desk in No. 11, surrounded by officials, when the outgoing Chancellor, the late Reginald Maudling, popped his head round the door and said, "Sorry to leave it in such a mess, old cock." He then sloped off. Governments have a tremendous interest in suppressing damaging facts about their stewardship of the economy. That is wrong and such practices should end.
The debate about each year's Budget and the projections for the year ahead, which lay the foundations for either recovery or recession, should be available to the alternative Government so that they can construct the details of their Budget.
Most of what is produced in the Budget passes without great public attention or even attention in this House. Most of the debate focuses on VAT, income tax and the projected total public spending. An array of subsidiary detail which is not controversial is provided, however, and there would be no problem in Treasury officials making it known to the official Opposition so that they could prepare a proper alterntative Budget.
Under my arrangements, I envisage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, as usual, address the House for several hours to explain the Budget. A debate would follow and then the House would adjourn. On the next day, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Chancellor would spend a similar amount of time putting forward the Opposition's proposals, based on the same range of detailed documents that the Government had provided to the Vote Office.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Livingstone: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend because he helped to make it possible for me to make this speech.
Mr. Skinner: I did not realise what my hon. Friend's motion was about and there is no doubt that its content is different, unlike the motion tabled by the hon. Member for
612
Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). My hon. Friend has offered some new ideas about the presentation of the Budget, but he had better be careful about what day he chooses for its presentation. If that day happened to be a Friday, the Government might not be here to carry their Budget through. He must pick his day carefully.
Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend has made a cruel and unkind point. I do not want to rub salt into open wounds.
Mr. Peter Hain: As part of the new consultative process, does my hon. Friend agree that proper soundings should be made throughout the regions of England and in Scotland and Wales? The Budget offers no benefit to Wales. If a new devolved structure of government is established, and given the new Budget procedures that my hon. Friend envisages, perhaps consultations could be held with the Welsh Parliament to ensure that the Budget genuinely reflected the views of all Britain rather than those of the narrow Whitehall clique. That clique governs the momentum and the ideas of the current Budget procedures which we are now seeking to overturn.
Mr. Livingstone: I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. It is absolute nonsense for secrecy to surround the whole Budget process.
My motion focuses narrowly on the presentation of the Budget before Parliament. If my motion is agreed—there may be a vote on it and it could be passed unanimously—and the Procedure Committee studies it in detail, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will convey his remarks to it. Instead of the great secrecy that surrounds the Budget, a consultation paper should be issued two or three months before it is formally presented. It could set out the parameters of the Budget, the broad financial position, the various options and demands on spending and the range of available tax options. We should then be able to conduct a proper national debate in regional parliaments, which I hope will be established before the century is out, local authorities, chambers of commerce and trade unions. People could then debate the Budget options and give advice to the Government. Given current sophisticated polling techniques, the Government could then gauge public opinion of certain Budget proposals.
Mr. Cryer: Would it not be far better to conduct an open debate, as my hon. Friend has suggested, rather than give private dinners at No. 10, hosted by the Prime Minister? Those dinners are attended by people who give funds to the Conservative party and they influence decisions, most importantly, about the Budget. No doubt the brewers were present at such a dinner and exercised their influence, because there was no increase in the excise duty on beer. Similar influence must have been exerted by the tobacco industry, because, although the duty on tobacco has increased, there is continuing opposition within the Government to a ban on tobacco advertising. There is no doubt that such secret interventions and influences on the processes of government under the Conservative Administration, whom many regard as political corruption, would be kept at bay if we had a completely open debate about Budget priorities, as suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Livingstone: That is exactly right. Part of the British tradition of secrecy and elitism means that a handful of people at the top of the Treasury and the most

613
senior members of the Government know what is going on. We should be honest, however, and accept that most members of the Cabinet are no more than spectators of the process. They are told on the morning of the Budget what it contains, when it is far too late to make any serious changes. I suspect that it is too late for any change simply because all the documents have already been printed and collated, ready to be handed out at the Vote Office as soon as the Chancellor has sat down. It is absolute nonsense.
This is not, therefore, a question simply of the members of a wicked Tory Cabinet carving it up among themselves. It comes down to the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a handful of unelected Treasury officials, often drawn from a narrow public school, Oxford and Cambridge elite. That is utterly unacceptable at the tail end of the 20th century, when most countries in Europe have been functioning democracies for a very long time.
Mr. Cryer: While my hon. Friend is discussing the subject of secrecy of the intervention and influence of Treasury officials—who are almost entirely drawn from the Oxbridge category, public school educated and not sympathetic to the Labour party or to progressive ideas generally—will he dwell a little on the subject of the influence of the Common Market institutions on the preparation of the Budget, in which they also, not openly but clandestinely, bring pressure to bear on Governments to follow specific economic policies?
Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend is right that the advice and pressures applied to Government should he open. The country has been scandalised by the thought of the Prime Minister of the day sitting at a private dinner in No. 10 Downing street with foreign business men, many of whom are now known to be crooks, discussing what tax breaks they would like and then getting them into the Budget.
Mrs. Jones who lives next door to me would like to have a couple of hours with the Prime Minister over a tasty dinner and see what can be done to improve the quality of her life by bumping up her pension, but the Mrs Joneses get no say, whereas international criminals descend from Hong Kong and from Cyprus, in the run-up to the Budget, to bend the ear of the Chancellor and of the Prime Minister—and then there are nice fat cheques for Tory party coffers. That is a disgrace. I am sure that it is all perfectly legal, but I hope that an incoming Labour Government will introduce retrospective legislation so that those people can all be sent to prison, including the Ministers who are involved.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I am in favour of the consultation process, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), with the—one hopes, elected—representatives of the regions. Does my hon. Friend agree with the process that we would institute by his new procedures, in the sense that the average person in the street could be consulted? There would be a range of proposals and, as in the case of the Sunday Trading Bill, for example, people could write in and put pressure on Conservative Members, who at the moment simply troop through the Lobbies, cut everyone's pension and increase national insurance contributions and so on and effectively increase tax rates to the highest that
614
we have ever had. The public could plead with the Whips to abide by their voters' wishes and then go for our alternative proposals, which would reverse those decisions.
Mr. Livingstone: When listening to my hon. Friend, I was reminded of the Budget process in Grenada, when that country had a progresssive Government before it was brutally overthrown by American troops. Each year the Budget in Grenada was published in detail; there was a period of consultation; the whole community came together. It is much easier to do that in Grenada, where there are just a few tens of thousands of people—a couple of hundred thousand at most—compared with this country. It would be much more difficult in a nation of 56 million, but a party that has been able to govern for 14 years must surely have ideas about setting up structures for the consultation of the British people.
I hope that when we get a change of Government the climate of respect for community and commitment to community and community institutions will lead to a flourishing of representative organisations throughout the country: neighbourhood councils, a strengthening of trade unions, an increased attendance at the meetings of residents' associations and chambers of commerce. I see no reason why Government should not be widespread and open in their consultation.
When I was leader of the Greater London council—that brief, shining five years, the apex of human civilisation, government and wisdom—we were able to institute a procedure by which we did consult; and it was not just with the wicked old trade unions. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry would come in to see me and the chair of finance would sit down and say, "We have a problem at the moment: could you cut the budget by another 2·5 per cent; bring the rate down?" and we were able to accommodate that. When the members of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry were consulted by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was then in his incarnation as destroyer of London democracy, he was amazed to discover that the chamber had had a better deal out of the Labour-controlled GLC, in being listened to and helped by the financial policies of the council, than they had ever had from previous administrations under Sir Horace Cutler and Lord Plummer.
Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend has alternative Budgets in his motion, I wonder if he would dwell a little on the alternative system of taxation, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he delivered his long, somewhat monotonous and boring speech recently on the Budget, expatiated at length of the virtue of value added tax as opposed to direct income tax.
If Labour Members were proposing an alternative Budget in the way in which my hon. Friend's motion suggests, we would want to emphasise the fairness of direct taxation, which is linked to people's ability to pay, and the unfairness of value added tax, which oppresses the poor because it takes a much greater proportion of their income than of that of the person who is extremely, or relatively, well off. My hon. Friend should emphasise that, to show what radically different views we have about the means of raising taxation.
Mr. Livingstone: I am coming to that argument.
I have talked about the general procedures. I want to try to sketch out what would perhaps have happened if we had

615
had that situation in operation this week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says, there are clear ideological difficulties in the House about the approach to taxation.
Sadly, the British media—most of whom are in the pockets of the present Government and collaborate in perpetrating the big lie—have gone on, year after year, depicting the Conservative party as a party of low taxation. In fact, we experienced, immediately after the former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher came to power, several years of real increases in taxation which hurt not just working-class families but middle-class families. There was a brief period when taxes were reduced a smidgeon as the oil revenues flowed in, but now once again we are committed to substantial real increases in taxation, which will mean that under the present Government we are being more severely taxed than under the last Labour Government.
They are different taxes, however. We do not get the cries of pain from the Tory press when this Government are banging up taxes that we had when Labour Governments did that, because the basis of the taxation is different. It is called low visibility taxation because, instead of putting up people's income tax honestly and fairly, which means that people who earn the most donate the most—people who have done the best make the greatest contribution—there has been a shift to just putting taxes on consumption. The way in which that works is pernicious.
Let us consider the way in which value added tax will be applied to heating fuel. The poorest 10 per cent. of people in Britain spend nearly 10 per cent. of their income on heating. The addition of VAT will mean a substantial increase in spending for them. The richest 10 per cent., with much larger homes but who are much more careless about the way in which they heat their homes, spend only £13 of their income—a ratio of 10:13. Yet the incomes of the top 10 per cent. are in some cases hundreds of times greater than those of people in the bottom 10 per cent. It is an unfair and regressive form of taxation which penalises the poor.
The aspect of that which I find most depressing is that we are now in a position which is worse than that which prevailed in Victorian times. We have got back to Victorian values—the values that produce great inequalities of wealth. The inequalities of wealth in Britain today between the richest and the poorest have grown so dramatically that they are worse than they were more than 100 years ago. As a result of the increasing use of VAT and the increasing reductions in taxation of high earners, the situation seems set to worsen year by year.
There is a moral case to be made for saying that that is unfair, but there is also an economic case for saying that it is damaging. If we examine the works of most modern economists, we find that the greater the inequalities of wealth in a nation, the more one accentuates the business cycle—the boom and bust cycle. When one is in a turndown in the economy and people start to cut back, the people at the top of society, the richest, can make dramatic and immediate reductions in their spending, whereas the people at the bottom cannot.
The more we widen the inequalities of wealth, the more we accentuate the shift into recession. If we had narrowed
616
differentials, people at the bottom of society would have continued to spend in a recession because they spend on the basic essentials.
Let us consider what could have happened. Let us suppose that we had increased the top rate of tax and reversed the Lawson tax proposals of 1988. Suppose we had returned to a top rate of tax of effectively 60 per cent. which is what prevailed for a decade under Mrs. Thatcher's regime as Prime Minister—that could hardly have been a socialist measure. If we had returned to the tax regime as it was prior to 1988, we would have released between £5 billion and £7 billion in extra taxes on the rich. If we had transferred all that to pensioners, they would have seen a dramatic real increase in the quality of their lives and the money at their disposal.
Pensioners would have gone out and spent that money. They would have warmed their homes a little more. They would have bought themselves better food and some new clothes. Increasingly, the poor spend their money on British-produced goods and that creates more work. However, people affected by tax increases at the top rate often spend their money on highly expensive and high-tech imported goods which we no longer produce or perhaps never produced in this country. If we were to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, that would help to lift the nation out or recession. There is an underlying economic argument which the Government should have taken on board if they wanted to strengthen our move out of recession.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: My hon. Friend has made a very important point about the distribution of income and the business cycle. Now that he is blessed by the presence of a Treasury Minister, he may want to reinforce that point by considering the difference between the business cycle in the United Kingdom and business cycles elsewhere in western Europe. The business cycle is much sharper in this country, which illustrates my hon. Friend's point about the wider distribution of income and the greater inequalities in the United Kingdom as opposed to other western European countries. That has a damaging impact on Britain's manufacturing industry and on the ability of our managers to manage and to plan ahead.
Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend has made a very valuable point. Modern European economies have done so much better than the United Kingdom in recent years because their economic cycles are managed by their Governments. Their Governments intervene to smooth the cycles to assist. However, we have the lunatic classical old economics which are regurgitated in a modern form. We stand back and let the cycle run its course.
The economic history of the past 150 years from the point of view of unemployment figures contains some striking differences. A graph depicting the level of unemployment prior to the start of the second world war would show that unemployment fluctuated up to 10 per cent. and then came down within four or five years. That was a sharp and rapid business cycle. However, that sharp cycle was smoothed out by the Keynesian economics which predominated from 1945 to the mid-1970s. Instead of violent oscillations in the business cycle, we saw the most sustained and successful period of growth in the global economy while most western nations were committed to Keynesianism.

617
That is the kind of debate that we could enjoy if rival Budgets were presented based on different economic priorities and different attitudes towards Government intervention in the economy and the balance between the public and the private sector. Such issues could be debated seriously and that would engage the British public.
Let me consider now what would have happened if my system had been in operation this year. The Chancellor would—as he did—have presented his Budget. His presentation last month might have been quite different if he had known that an alternative was to be produced the next day which would have been judged against the Chancellor's Budget. I am not alone in suspecting that the Chancellor's Budget was geared very much towards winning the next election—and I do not for a moment mean the general election: I mean the next Tory leadership election.
On Budget day, I arrived too late to obtain a seat on the rather crowded Labour Benches and I had to sit in the overspill Gallery. For the first time in my life, I listened to the Chancellor's Budget surrounded predominantly by Conservative Members. It is not unfair to say that they were almost sub-orgasmic with joy and ecstasy as the Chancellor rolled out those right-wing platitudes. He did it quite casually, with little of intellectual substance to sustain them. Conservative Members were bouncing up and down, and I suddenly thought that the Chancellor was attempting to pander to them. He was attempting to pander to the people who had helped to bankrupt Britain and who had led us into this disastrous economic position.
The Chancellor is supposed to be something of a liberal—if that is not a contradiction in terms for any Conservative Member these days. However, he pandered to the worst, most ignorant and backward instincts of the Conservative party. I am not sure whether the Chancellor would have attempted such a shallow performance if he had known that it would be judged the next day against the performance of the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Chancellor.
The alternative Budget would have been presented the day after the Chancellor's Budget. That would have provided a stark contrast and would have been a benefit to the Labour party. The British people would have been able to see the alternative.
I want now to consider briefly what that alternative Budget would have contained. I have no doubt that it would have contained serious proposals to deal with the crisis facing Britain in terms of military spending. Virtually all economic commentators point out that we are spending twice the proportion of our gross domestic product on the military than the average European nation. That builds in an economic disincentive because military spending is not as dynamic in terms of its economic impact as other forms of public spending. Military spending produces only one quarter of the jobs that other forms of public spending produce.
A nation that is disproportionately spending on its military creates fewer jobs, and it is jobs which help to fuel economic recovery. A Labour party which knew that it had to present a serious Budget would have consulted the defence industry, the trade unions working in that industry, the managers in the industry and the academics who have examined the question of arms diversification and conversion. The Labour party would have produced a detailed proposal for a phased programme of arms conversion—
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is now in order and I ask for your ruling. Having already made a phantasmagoric and hysterical speech about weird suggestions for new procedures, the hon. Gentleman is now straying from the terms of his motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The debate must of course centre around procedures. I am happy to hear illustrations, but the debate must not go so far beyond illustrative purposes as to forget the main terms of the motion. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will bear that in mind, as will all other hon. Members.
Mr. Livingstone: I hasten to say that I am not engaged in a filibuster. I can see the end of my speech hoving into view even as I think of my next sentence.
The procedures that I have proposed would not simply affect this House. There would have been a wide debate in the arms industry. Labour would have produced detailed proposals to protect jobs because jobs in the industry are being lost. Without a proper state-led arms conversion and diversification programme, jobs are being lost industry by industry, site by site across the country. Those jobs often involve the most skilled workers in British manufacturing in the most modern plants. They are exactly the kind of workers who should be put to work to create in Britain the high-skilled, high-tech products that we are importing and which are adding to our balance of trade deficit problems.
The alternative Budget would have contained a major element about making the arms industry in Britain much more dynamic. That would have made a much greater contribution to reducing our terrible balance of trade deficit.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): That is an interesting idea. However, the terms of the hon. Gentleman's motion call for an alternative Budget to be put forward by the official Opposition. Would the official Opposition espouse the cause which the hon. Gentleman has just argued?
Mr. Livingstone: I have no doubt whatsoever that that would be the case. The Labour party is committed, in the shadow Cabinet and at conference, to a proper arms diversification strategy for Britain. We should hear no more nonsense about the Conservative party being sound on defence. By ignoring the great historic changes that are taking place and by refusing to have a defence review, the Government are locking us into a position where we are losing jobs week by week because we do not have such a strategy. Labour is committed to that strategy.
There may well be an intense debate in the Labour party about how fast we should go or exactly what form that strategy should take, but no one in the Labour party denies that there should be a proper diversification strategy. Otherwise, people will lose their jobs. The Labour party is committed to ensuring that, if defence jobs are lost, the workers are retrained, the factories are retooled and we keep the workers producing for Britain. That would have been a major part of this debate—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from his self-imposed brief.
Mr. Livingstone: I apologise. I was led astray by the Minister—I am told that it happens all the time.
The second major item would be the fundamental question of public spending. We have been told in a quite breathtaking sleight of hand that the Government will reduce public spending. There are two strands to that. First, the Government are freezing the wages of public sector workers and, secondly, they are making unspecified commitments to cuts by robbing the contingency fund. Amazingly, the markets have bought that rubbish. It is incredible that the Chancellor can say that the Government will make cuts in public spending and then get away with simply referring to the contingency fund and public sector wages. It is absolute nonsense.
There have been major pressures on the Government because people in the public sector have been losing real income. I do not believe that those who serve our nation in public sector employment—whether they are nurses, local authority workers, teachers or the people who sweep our streets—should bear the burden of lifting Britain out of the present economic morass by having their wages cut. Clearly, that would have been the central theme of an alternative Budget—being much more precise and honest. If we reduce the wages of public sector workers, it means that they will spend less. In that sense, they are being used to undermine economic recovery.
The Labour party's alternative Budget would have been precise and clear because we would have had access to Treasury officials. We would have had time to consult and work out exactly where we plan to increase public spending—what would be most urgent and most useful in lifting the nation out of the present and appalling recession. I know that technically we are out of recession, but it still feels very much like a recession to most people.
The third major item—I will not go beyond these three items because they are the core of any Budget—is the question of taxation. What was damaging for the Labour party at the general election—I disagree with some of my hon. Friends on this point—was the fact that it launched an alternative Budget at the beginning of the campaign. If we had been in the position year by year of preparing a fully detailed Budget with the support of Treasury officials, we would have had a debate about taxation as part of the normal political cycle, rather than launching it under the constraints of an election.
I do not know about other hon. Members, but I tend to find that people are more resistant to believing what I say during a general election than at any other time that I open my mouth. I suspect that the public defences go up as soon as the election "off" is given—they tend to be rather less receptive to what we say. A debate about the level of taxation for a week or more in the normal political cycle, as issues are tested and positions clarified, would leave people in a much better position to make up their minds about the truth of who would or would not increase taxes. Of course, the judgment of history will be that Labour's proposed taxes at the last election would have been much less savage than those with which we will have to live. We have been penalised for telling the truth. I want to get away from the situation in which such matters are thrown in at the last minute in an election.
I have no doubt that a Labour Government would have had to increase income taxes. The discipline of preparing an alternative Budget, the discipline of sitting down with Treasury officials and the discipline of saying where the money would come from to pay for the vital reconstruction
620
of our industrial base and the rebuilding of those, public services that have been savaged the most, and to fund a public works programme or to start to bring unemployed people back to work, would inevitably have forced the Labour party to face up to what increases in taxes would have been required and equally to work out those taxes in a way that would be the most productive for the nation as a whole rather than simply benefiting a narrow section.
I have not the slightest doubt that, after such a debate, we would have come up with an increase in the top tax rate and the tax rate for those earning over £30,000 a year. I should be quite happy to see the top tax rate back at 60 per cent., including national insurance contributions, for people earning over £30,000 a year. The argument would have been hammered out here and people would have decided whether it was fair and whether it was something that they were prepared to support.
I hope that the Government can see an advantage in that for them. Of course, there would be a major advantage for the Labour party in having access to Treasury officials. There would be major advantages in the Labour party's, being able to prepare for government with that discipline. However, there would also be major advantages for an honest Government. We would not have elections that degenerated into slanging matches of promises and accusations; we would build into the normal political cycle an annual debate about the priorities of the parties with regard to public spending and taxation. People could watch that debate away from the heat and the nonsense of an election campaign, and all the diversions and sound bites, and come to their own conclusions about which party had the long-term interests of the people and the economy at heart.
In that situation, the Labour party's alternative Budget would have been a decisive nail through the heart of the Government and would have opened the way not simply to a Labour victory but to a Labour party coming to power prepared and ready to govern from day one.
10.54 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful for the fact that, by a quirk of parliamentary procedures, we are debating this extraordinary motion this morning. I offer my apologies to the House. Unfortunately, my business men's lunch club is coming to Westminster today, so sadly I cannot be here for the end of the debate. However, I guarantee that I will read Hansard with interest on Monday. My business men were looking forward to hearing a report of the business and industry issues discussed in the House this morning. Sadly, that is not to be, because of the premature curtailment of the debate, which I suspect is something to do with the ongoing petulance of the war of attrition that the Labour party is waging to restore some of its credibility over its monumental incompetence in failing to table an amendment to the Budget resolution on value added tax on fuel and heating.
The motion strikes me as naive if one is being charitable, and extraordinary if one is being realistic. Listening to the cogent and well-argued speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), it crossed my mind what Lord Healey would think if he had an opportunity to read the motion. I suspect that, if one went down the Corridor to another place and drew his attention

621
to the motion, one would be able to hear echoing down the Corridors his belly-aching at the preposterousness of the motion. The motion states:
That this House calls on the Procedure Committee to bring forward proposals so that in future years the House would no longer vote for or against the Budget".
I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, East does not need a lesson on constitutional history or on the way in which the constitution operates. However, in case he needs such a lesson, it would be sensible simply to explain that, in a constitutional democracy, there are general elections in which different parties compete with a set of proposals that are to be implemented on successful election as the Government. Normally, although not always, the Opposition parties, by definition, have serious differences of opinion on the main thrust of the policies of the Government of the day. To think that a Budget could be produced when there is a fundamental difference between the basic philosophies of the two parties is to ask too much. If one cannot get agreement because of a difference in the fundamental philosophies of two political parties, how would one ever get a Budget? If one could not get a Budget, how would the country continue to operate?
Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman is not reading the motion as I intended. If the motion is poorly worded, I apologise; I am not suggesting for one moment that the House would choose a compromise Budget from the two parties. There would be the Government's Budget and the Opposition's Budget, and the vote would be between the two. In a sense, we would still have a vote for or against the Budget, but it would not simply be for only one Budget. In a hung Parliament, which might be on the books one day, the Opposition's Budget would perhaps be carried.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. All I can do is discuss the proposals in the motion. I am sorry if he has not worded his motion properly; he could have tightened it up and improved it. We are meant to be debating and considering a motion under which the House would no longer vote for or against the Budget. That proposition would be a recipe for disaster. In most years, we would never get a Budget because we would not be able to reach agreement.
The proposition is that we choose instead between alternative Budgets proposed by the Government and by the Opposition. I have always understood that the duty of the Government was to govern and the duty of the Opposition was to oppose. If the country wanted the Opposition and the Government to determine our way forward during a five-year period, I suspect that they would use their votes in a general election to come up with that extraordinary mish-mash. That is what is suggested as the logical conclusion of the motion.
I would find it quite extraordinary if any Labour Government ever agreed to the contents of the motion. I look forward to reading with great interest the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who is to respond for the Opposition. I would think that the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and his predecessor in that position, the Leader of the Opposition, would have no truck with such a suggestion.
The motion goes on to say that if the Opposition could not or did not want to exercise the right to take part in the little performance, it would be up to the next party to do so
622
—the Liberal Democrat party. I see that representatives of that party are conspicuously absent from today's debate. That suggestion boggles the mind.
Mr. Dorrell: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is, at best, naive.
Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that there may be at least the germ of an idea in the motion? We have just had five days of parliamentary time devoted to the Budget debate, during which we discussed the Government's proposals in the conventional way. It was regarded as normal in other years that the Opposition would have at least one single proposal on how things might have been done better.
Instead, we had five days of speeches from the Opposition Front Bench which did not contain a single proposal with the authority of the Labour party. Whether the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would agree with any such proposal is a further matter on which one may speculate. The Labour party did not have a single proposal on how it would deal with things differently from what the Government propose.
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend has a justifiable reputation for being eminently reasonable and perspicacious. Like him, I was not in the slightest bit surprised that the Labour party could not, for whatever reason, come up with a single constructive proposal. That rather adds to my misgivings about the motion, because, as a charitable person, I should hate to have to put the Opposition on a spot in which they were forced to come up with constructive proposals to deal with the economy and with the Budget.
Mr. Livingstone rose—
Mr. Burns: I will give way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He may say that he has many suggestions about an alternative Budget, and I have no doubt about that, because he is an interesting thinker. Without wanting to get involved in the internecine wars in the Labour party, I must say that, sadly, he is a man in the wilderness whistling in the dark when it comes to making constructive suggestions.
Mr. Livingstone: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that one cannot complain that the Labour party puts forward no alternative during the Budget debate, and then complain also about a motion that would institutionalise, a procedure whereby the Opposition had to make specific proposals. On the basis of this speech, I would expect him to support my proposal.
Mr. Burns: With respect, that was not what I was suggesting. I was worried that it might be unfair to institutionalise a system that brought pressure to bear on the Opposition to have the courage to make constructive proposals.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and others have commented on the alternative Budget that has been heralded so much during the past 18 months. That alternative Budget was announced, I think, on the steps of the Treasury in that arrogant photo-opportunity which showed the over-confidence of the Labour party during the general election. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that, as soon as he had read it, he realised with horror that the Labour party had totally misunderstood what was going on in the economy in the south-east of Britain.

623
To paraphrase the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the alternative Budget was the longest suicide note in history for the Labour party in the south-east. It bore no reality to the average earnings and the tax payments that were made by people in the south-east. That has been reflected in the fact that the Labour party has a minimal number of seats outside London in the south-east. That shows how out of touch it is with what goes on in this country broadly on a line from the Wash to Birmingham.
I return to the quite extraordinary motion. I should be fascinated to know whether a future Labour Government would want to abide by its terms because, frankly, I cannot foresee that happening. The hon. Member for Brent, East clearly knows that we have just had five days of debate on the Budget, and that we have an ongoing debate, not just for five days of the year but for 365 days of the year, on general economic policy.
The Government put forward their economic policy and stick by it, and the Opposition say constantly how, in their view, the economy could and should be improved. A different emphasis should be placed on economic policy. Suggestions are made as the official policy of the Opposition, when we are lucky—at the moment, there is a dearth of such policies. There are also different interest groups within the parliamentary Labour party which are associated with the general philosophy of that party.
To say that there is no debate on an alternative economic programme or an alternative Budget clearly does not stand up to investigation. The motion would allow the Opposition, and presumably the shadow Chancellor, to have time on the Floor of the House, to make proposals.
Certainly, that spokesman would not be the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), after his comments during the past few weeks in the press and in the House. The Labour party would not want the hon. Gentleman to be official spokesman on the economy in case he gave the game away and put his foot in it, once again, and caused embarrassment. I suspect that it was because of the hon. Gentleman's alleged remarks in The People that the Labour party failed to table an amendment to the Budget earlier this week. That embarrassed the party and highlighted its incompetence. The hon. Member for Garscadden knows that the package produced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to give genuine help to pensioners and to others with their VAT bills from 1 April next year has met the needs of those people.
To return to the main motion, no Labour Government would ever want to offer the Opposition in the future the facilities that the motion gives. I suspect—this will not come as any surprise to the hon. Member for Brent, East—that the shadow Cabinet does not support it either. Under this ricochet motion, if the official Opposition fail in any way to take up the opportunity offered, it passes to the third largest party which, of course, is the Liberal Democrat party. That suggestion is fraught with danger. I hope that we have some common ground on that point. I suspect that the experiences of the hon. Member for Brent, East and the hon. Member for Garscadden as parliamentary candidates do not differ from mine.
Liberal Democrat candidates can go up and down a street, meet 30 people in that street and give 30 variations on a policy in the hope of winning votes for their party.
624
They are the experts at grubbing for votes by saying anything that they think the listener wants to hear. I suspect that the Liberal Democrats themselves would recoil in horror at the thought of presenting an alternative Budget. The last thing that any Liberal wants to do is categorically to state what his party believes in and will stick by, however tough the going gets.
Let us take the issue of VAT on fuel. We all know that in 1991 it was official Liberal Democrat policy to impose VAT on fuel. That is clear in the party's documents. Yet now, because the Liberal Democrats saw the initial reaction before the compensation scheme was announced, they have run away and tried to disown that policy. Imagine the conflicts, the arguments and the dilemmas that the Liberal Democrats would face if they had the opportunity to have an alternative Budget considered by a future House of Commons. It would not work.
The hon. Member for Brent, East has given us a useful opportunity to debate—
Mr. Livingstone: The Government gave us the opportunity.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman says that we gave him the opportunity. On this particular morning, it was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who gave us the opportunity by seeking prematurely to end the debate on business and industry initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). However, I shall not argue the semantics of the matter.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, East for giving us the opportunity to indulge in this intellectual exercise and this canter around the course. I fear that he is in a small minority in supporting the motion. However attractive it might be to an Opposition party now, there is a possibility—albeit a slim one—that at some point in the future we will conceivably have a Labour Government, and no Government would want to be saddled with this nightmare proposal.
11.12 am
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: We have before us a set of procedures which are wholly unworkable and highly unrealistic. The proposals enunciated by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) are probably intellectually interesting enough, but they have wide implications for an entire area of the economy which I suppose that he has not thought about.
It is my understanding that political parties set out before elections their manifestos which contain commitments to the country on the economy, the manufacturing base, fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy and all other areas of economic activity. The hon. Member for Brent, East made out that the Budget is an occasion once a year when we decide how to cut or increase taxes. But the Budget has a structure based on the fiscal, monetary, trade and economic policy of the Government.
If the hon. Member for Brent, East assumes that a Budget is merely a matter of increasing or reducing taxes, I am glad that he would never be Chancellor of the Exchequer in any future Labour Government. The country has always been given choices; those choices are set out in our manifestos and policies. In the past 14 years, the Conservative Government have done many things that have widened the base of share ownership, wealth

625
ownership and property ownership in our country. All those changes have been made as a result of successive Conservative victories. They have come through the various Budgets which have fine-tuned the economy and achieved the successes that we have seen so far.
The hon. Member for Brent, East talks about open government. Open government is, indeed, important. It can be seen as something which ought to be a part of our democratic process. The Conservative Government are wholly committed to open government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has gone out of his way, through our citizens charter and other initiatives, to make sure that open government is a matter of great importance in our policies.
If the proposals of the hon. Member for Brent, East were accepted, many of the measures that any Government, whether Conservative or Labour, could put into effect would be cancelled and stultified at the outset, right here in the House. We would end up with a hotch-potch, a compromise, and an indistinguishable morass of policies which would have been traded and bartered across the Floor of the Chamber. There would be no politics, let alone policy, in the running of the Government.
Today, our economic performance is one of the best of any member state of the European Community. Would it have been possible, under the proposals of the hon. Member for Brent, East, to bring inflation down to 1·4 per cent.—the lowest in the EC and G7 countries and the lowest in Britain since 1959? Would it have been possible to bring industry's interest bill down by £12·5 billion since 1990 by reducing interest rates? Would it have been possible to reduce unemployment since January by 137,000? Would it have been possible for industry to increase productivity by 5 per cent. in the last quarter? Those improvements can be engendered only by the Government creating the right framework and a stable economic environment. That is done by the Government and the Chancellor of the day, unilaterally, but through consensus and discussion. It cannot be done by bartering across the Floor of the House of Commons on different aspects of policy.
Would it have been possible under the hon. Gentleman's proposals to reduce corporation tax since 1978 from 52 to 33 per cent. and yet to see our revenue from corporation tax increase from £4 billion in 1978 to £21 billion in 1990? I wonder whether it would have been possible for the United Kingdom to be the largest receiver of overseas investment in the past five years. I estimate that overseas investment totals £149 million, of which £80 million was portfolio investment. Would it have been possible to attract such investment under the hon. Gentleman's proposals for hotch-potch Budgets? Would it have been possible for Britain to attract 44 per cent. of all inward investment into the EC if we had had the mish-mash of policies, compromises and bartering that the hon. Gentleman has proposed? Would it have been possible for us to save 240,000 jobs in Britain through foreign investment, if the hon. Member for Brent, East had been allowed his proposition?
The hon. Gentleman's proposal has wide ramifications for our trade, inward investment and macro-economic policies and implications for our fiscal and monetary policies. If we had agreed to it, could Britain have been among those countries with the largest amount of foreign investment? I understand that last year we earned £26 billion from such investments. Surely the Opposition
626
were well known for enforcing exchange controls and for their protectionist policies. Could that type of policy have been discussed alongside our policies in the House and been mitigated and alleviated by the procedures that the hon. Gentleman suggests?
Is it not a fact that our overseas investments in many parts of the world—I understand that they amount to $80 billion in the United States—including south Asia, the Pacific rim and the far east are earning money for this country, bringing in investment and protecting jobs? Could British companies have won contracts in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia? Could they have set up joint ventures in India, under the Prime Minister's Indo-British initiative, thereby encouraging a flow of inward and outward investment? Would all that have been possible, given the hon. Gentleman's proposal? It would not.
It would have been wholly impossible to run this country in the way that it has been run for many hundreds of years, and it would have been impossible for political parties to function sensibly.
The proposal would simply create intellectual chaos. Does that not show that the Opposition have no real alternatives to the successes that Conservative Governments have engendered during the past 14 years and that the proposal has been suggested as a way of wearing some of our clothes?
11.22 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I am bound to say that when I was brought in to respond to this debate at relatively short notice, I found the terms of the motion somewhat surprising. The first element to attract my attention was that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It seemed an odd proposition that we should approve a motion which states that, when dealing with future Budgets, the House
"would no longer vote for or against the Budget".
That proposition begs two questions. First, what would be the role of the House in the context of the Budget and, secondly, what would be the consequences of whatever action the House might take if it were not being invited to vote for or against? That seems an interesting constitutional doctrine which, as a Treasury Minister, might make my life quite comfortable. However, as a Member of Parliament and a citizen of this country, I find the idea deeply offensive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford very properly speculated on the attitude of Lord Healey or Lord Barnett to the idea that, between 1974 and 1979, they should have presented a few ideas to the House, but that other ideas would also have been invited; they would merely have adopted the guise of advocates for their ideas, as there would have been ample opportunity for anyone else to come up with others that might directly contradict them. I doubt whether they would have embraced that proposition with warmth, or considered it an idea to be pursued.
Mr. Burns: I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks that Lord Healey, who is renowned for his very forthright views, might think that anyone who supported such a motion was out of their "tiny Chinese minds".
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth. That was a formulation which sprang to mind as a description that Lord Healey might have used of

627
someone suggesting alternative proposals of which he did not desperately approve. If he were still a Member of this House he might even have used that phrase about the views expressed by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). If my memory serves me right, Lord Healey first used it when talking about his reception at a national executive committee meeting of the Labour party, so if it was not specifically a description of the hon. Member for Brent, East, it at least described many of his friends in the Labour party. I do not remember whether the hon. Member for Brent, East was a member of the NEC at the time, but I am certain that the people at whom Lord Healey's remark was directed were people of whom the hon. Member would approve.
As I said during my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, the motion contains one kernel of an idea with which I have a sneaking sympathy. If accepted, it would put the onus on the official Opposition to come to a Budget debate with some ideas—even one idea would be an advance on what we heard last week—and they would have to show how they would have preferred budgetary policy to develop.
I can understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Brent, East about the fact that the Opposition Front Bench did not see fit to set out an alternative economic strategy to the House last week. Indeed, they did not see fit to set out any clear ideas on fiscal, monetary and trading policy, or on any other aspect of economic policy.
The Opposition expect the House and the country to take seriously a party that presents itself as the low-tax option. No doubt, there are plenty of arguments that the Labour party might use in a Budget debate, but the proposition which the Opposition would come to the House and go to the country on the basis that they would levy less tax and be sterner disciplinarians of the public finances than the Government defies common sense. Also, that is not a proposition which the hon. Member for Brent, East would support.
I think that I detect in the motion an attempt by the hon. Member for Brent, East to wheedle out of his hon. Friends some ideas about how they think that the economy should be run. If that is his endeavour, I wish him well. Honest debate would indeed be served if the Opposition could be persuaded to tell the country just one detail of what they would do if they had the opportunity to present economic proposals and packages to the House.
The hon. Member for Brent, East suggests that, as part of this process to encourage honest and informed debate on practical measures, the official Opposition should have access to Treasury officials when preparing their ideas to present to the House. That suggestion could create serious problems in terms of constitutional doctrine, the use of Treasury officials' time and so forth. However, I have an
628
even more fundamental difficulty with the idea, because in the Budget debate last week we did not hear any concepts of what the Opposition think that they would do.
The implication of the motion is that the void that currently occupies the part of Labour party thinking that should be filled by economic policy would be filled by Treasury officials. Although there are good officials in the Treasury, that would not lead to good economic policy. It is not my understanding of how political choice operates or of the purpose of debate in the House or of elections. It is not the job of Treasury officials to fill the policy void of politicians who do not know, or cannot agree on, what they want to do. It is the job of Treasury officials to assist and support in the execution of policies espoused by elected politicians.
Until we have clear evidence that the Opposition have a package of proposals and ideas about how they think that the economy should be managed, there is no job for Treasury officials to do, because it is for politicians to set out the parameters within which they want officials to work. The implication of the motion is that when politicians have failed to produce even the sketchiest of parameters, somehow it is for Treasury officials miraculously to fill that void. That is an unattractive proposition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) put forward the most rigorous objection to the idea that the House can pick and choose between various options presented to it in the Budget. It is that although the tax expenditure balance is an important part of total economic policy, it is by no means all of it. Indeed, it is probably much less than half, if one wanted to measure it, of total economic policy.
The Government pursue an economic strategy based on a clear idea that our task is to deliver fiscal and monetary discipline and a stable background against which a free economy can work, and to provide a legal and social framework that reinforces a free market economy. We do that because we think that it is the most effective way to generate wealth and improve living standards, which is the basis on which we presented the Budget on 30 November and on which we shall continue to present Budgets and ask the House to support them.
Question put and negatived.

Budget procedures

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 14th December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Fisheries not later than three hours after their commencement, and those proceedings may be entered upon or continued after the expiration of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Newton.]

  EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
  Ordered,
  That European Community Document No. 9662/93 relating to guide prices for fishery products 1994 shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Newton.]

Social Security (Contributions) Bill and Statutory Sick Pay Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in respect of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill and the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a second time.—(Mr. Newton.]
11.32 am
Mr. Donald Dewar: I did not anticipate speaking on this motion or having an opportunity to do so. However, it is worth asking the House to delay proceedings for just a few minutes. The Leader of the House, whose reputation for being a reasonable man has withstood the test of time—though it has been damaged in the past few days—will understand that this is an unusual motion. It relates directly to the equally unusual business next week and the way in which the House is to deal with significant and important measures. What the motion does in short order is not just telescope but almost reverse the normal procedure for dealing with Bills.
All hon. Members will be familiar with the fact that Bills receive a Second Reading and normally then go to Committee, occasionally on the Floor of the House but usually upstairs. Only once the House has given Bills a Second Reading are we in a position to put down various amendments.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is there not also normally a gap between Second Reading and Committee stage so that hon. Members have an opportunity to table amendments before the Committee stage starts? The motion would wipe out that opportunity.
Mr. Dewar: The tabloid cliche is "indecent haste", which is a mark of Government procedures. We are being invited not to wait to see whether the House will give Second Reading approval to the Social Security (Contributions) Bill and the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We are being invited to table amendments in anticipation of that approval. The reason is simple. The timetable motion to steam roller those measures through is so brutal that it will be impossible, other than by means of manuscript amendments handed in at the end of Second Reading, to table any amendments, new clauses or new schedules. Therefore, special arrangements are being made to enable that to be done before Second Reading.
I must confess that I find it extraordinary. I genuinely do not understand the necessity for such an odd procedure. I do not know why the House is being invited to push through two Bills of considerable significance in terms of their impact on ordinary people. The Government will no doubt argue that the Bills are narrow and technical in their drafting and I concede that they are, to a limited extent, but they raise considerable matters of principle about what the Government are doing and how they want to run our affairs. It is—I use the word advisedly—monstrous that we should be asked to approve this motion today and bulldoze the Bills through all their stages in two days.
We do not know the details because I have not seen a guillotine motion yet. As far as I know, until yesterday, when the position changed, there had been no consultation on the matter between myself and my opposite number and I was given no indication that the measure was being
630
contemplated. It is an abuse of process and I find it offensive that we should be put in this position. It is all the more puzzling because there was no evidence this morning of urgency in the Government's management of our affairs; we discovered that they could not even keep a quorum for a debate that was no doubt important to the hon. Member whose name had been drawn in the ballot and who raised the subject of business and industry.
I must make it clear that I shall not advise my hon. Friends to oppose this procedural motion, because, although it is unacceptable from the point of view of public policy and parliamentary procedure, I want the limited opportunity that the timetable motion may give me and my hon. Friends to put down motions. I do not wish to put you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in a position of having to accept manuscript amendments in a flurry and scurry around the Clerk's Table after Second Reading, assuming that the House grants those measures a Second Reading. I am therefore mindful to advise my hon. Friends to nod the motion through. However, I am right to protest about it because it is central to a flawed parliamentary strategy that cannot be justified.
May I explain why we take that view? I said that the Government would argue that the measures are narrow and technical. However, they are important. I was interested to notice that Ministers referred to the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions as an increase in taxation. As the Leader of the House will know, the Chancellor is taking some £2 billion from the people of this country, which is over £300 million more than he would get by putting 1 p on the standard rate of income tax.
The measure is of considerable substance and represents a significant contribution to the massive hike in taxation contained in the recent Budget proposals. The measure also has a wider social significance. The motion paves the way to force through a package. I do not want to debate that subject at length, as I would be testing your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall mention the importance of the motion.
The Government are not only taking a substantial sum in increased taxation through the Social Security (Contributions) Bill that they wish to expedite with today's motion, but are taking more money by changing the unemployment benefit provisions and cutting the entitlement period from 12 to six months with the new job-seeker's allowance. The Bill is part of an important thrust of social policy which is arguably—I am not arrogant enough to say that there is no other side to the argument—challenging and undermining the contributory principle.
The Leader of the House was a sympathetic and well-respected Secretary of State for Social Security. There is no Minister better able to appreciate the implications and importance of what is being proposed. Therefore, I deplore the fact that the motion has been tabled as part of the steam-rollering exercise to which the Leader of the House has given his name.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill has been dealt with in the same way. It is an important technical measure as it alters a system that is important to industry. At present, if an employee is ill, the employer can reclaim 80 per cent. of the statutory sick pay from the state. Some £750 million is to be transferred to larger firms that are being asked to shoulder that burden. This morning on breakfast television —I am sure that the Leader of the House was loyally watching—the Prime Minister, in some part of Brussels,

631
said that he could not accept the Delors package because it would make our industry less competitive. He said that we should fight unemployment by cutting industrial costs and competing effectively in the marketplace.
The measure is being railroaded through in one day —it may be less, as the Social Security (Contributions) Bill may win the lion's share of the timetable motion, which we have not seen. However, if we assume that the measure is to be railroaded through in one day, industry will face a massive £750 million additional impost created by the Government in a hole and corner way. At the very same time, the Government are breaching the primacy of cutting industrial costs in the interests of allowing us to trade successfully in the free market of the European Union. At the very least, the issues are controversial, and should be allowed substantial debate, but we are being gagged.
The motion, which is part of the gagging process, should be challenged, not just in the name of decent parliamentary scrutiny and the parliamentary process, but in the interests of the many people outside the House with an interest in the legislation who have had no opportunity to lobby, influence opinion or state their view. Those people do not belong to unrepresentative groups. I know from private conversations of the deep dismay in organisations that are normally seen as loyal to the Government's general approach, such as the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry. They will have views on suddenly having to shoulder a bill of several hundred millions of pounds.
I appreciate that there is to be a package to offset employers' contributions, but it is not clear to me and to many other people exactly how that is to work and whether it will provide an adequate trade-off. We are discussing highly technical and complex issues. If I, as a Front-Bench spokesman, am having to run hard to try to catch up with the issues involved on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—which have been rolled into one next week —people outside will definitely find it difficult to ensure that they are not diddled by the arithmetic of such a complex change. It is nonsense to put people in that position.
We must also consider the interests of those who have lost benefit due to the changes involved in the new incapacity benefit. They may be thinking about moving into the labour market but wonder whether the measure provides them with a disincentive to work. Sadly, the provision may also provide an incentive for employers to look at employees' health records less sympathetically and to terminate employment before they face the risk of a claim for unfair dismissal.
The issues are all major, and we should have had a decent amount of time to consider them. There should also have been time for consultation, and to draw into the parliamentary process the public and vested interests—in the best sense of the phrase. That is an important factor of the democratic system, and it does us no credit if the issues are telescoped for reasons that I genuinely do not understand.
Next week, we shall debate the subjects, not at length, but for longer than today. It is not true that there is nothing that we can do but vote "Yea" or "Nay". Both Bills have a Northern Ireland dimension. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill preserves the small employers' exemption, but, as I
632
understand it, as many as 85 per cent. of employees will not fall within the exemption category. I welcome the presence of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who will have a greater understanding of the subject. My understanding of the calculations carried out by the Library is that only 15 per cent. of the work force will fall within the category and 85 per cent. will not receive payment. The motion paves the way for an unsatisfactory measure.
I recognise that there is always a difference of approach between Opposition and Government—that is the law of the jungle and, certainly, of Parliament. On occasions, we clash richly about the organisation of business, and there is a certain amount of posturing. However, that is not true of our approach today—we are not posturing. We regard the measures as important and of genuine public interest. When I was a young Back Bencher a long time ago, I had something of a reputation as a menace on Committees. I enjoyed them, and it used to be said that my idea of heaven was a Scottish Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that never ended, so perhaps I am prejudiced. Now I am older and cynical, and realise that one should not be starry-eyed about parliamentary procedures. However, I still believe that scrutiny is important and forms part of the parliamentary process that lies at the heart of our democracy. We should probe, test and look at the detail of the measures. On this occasion, we have been unnecessarily prevented from doing so. There should be a driving, self-evident and pressing reason for using such a procedure.
The argument does not even arise. At best, it seems that it has been done for the convenience of the Government. Some of my hon. Friends, with whom I have some sympathy, think that it has been done out of a sense of pique. There have been recent problems and troubles—the unified Budget procedure has not perhaps worked as smoothly as the Government had hoped. Now, the Budget is unravelling before our eyes. I am not one for trying to speculate about the Government's motives, but I am entitled to pass judgment on the results of their actions and must conclude that there has not been any real attempt to explain why the Bills have been treated in such a way.
Perhaps I am exceeding my authority, as I have not discussed it with the deputy Chief Whip, but had the Bills gone into Committee in the normal way, they would not have been artificially elongated and the Leader of the House should be reassured that the rules of order would have made any sort of filibustering in Committee difficult. There are points of importance that we wanted to discuss and specific amendments that we wanted to table. If we had had time to do that on a considered basis, we would have had time to involve others in the process. It would have been more sensible, knowing that there would not have been an abuse in Committee, to allow time for full consideration and it would have been much better to allow us to do so, rather than end up in—perhaps jiggery pokery is an offensive parliamentary term—let us say the unnatural procedures which the motions represent.
On Monday and Tuesday, I shall be scribbling out my new clauses to a Bill that has not even appeared on Second Reading. I sometimes wonder about the logicality of the parliamentary procedure—it has grown like Topsy over the years and centuries—but there is a certain logic to the Second Reading. It provides time for consideration.
The Committee stage provides further time for consideration and the Report stage is for a final look at what the Government have been doing. The Report stage

633
also gives the Government a chance to change their mind and consider suggestions that have been made—perhaps a rarer event than the Opposition would like. It is being absolutely squashing in a way that cannot be defended.
Although I shall not advise my hon. Friends to oppose the motions—I do not want to have to rely on the goodwill of the Chair to accept manuscript amendments—and shall advise them to let the unusual procedure take place, it must not be thought that that is in any way an approval of what is happening and we shall take the opportunity next week to stress in the Lobbies our strong disapproval of what the Government are doing.
I realise that I cannot ask the Deputy Speaker for a ruling, but, under such unusual procedure, I presume that the starring arrangements do not strictly apply. It is a matter of some importance to some of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. Normally, I would have to table the amendments on Monday. We must clarify that if they were tabled on Tuesday they would have to be starred. I recognise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it may be a matter for Madam Speaker to consider whether amendments that are tabled on Tuesday—in the extraordinary circumstances of the procedure being followed—would be sympathetically viewed and that the normal starring arrangements would not be enforced.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I wish in no way to pre-empt the decision, which will not be for me to make, but whether starred amendments are accepted or not is always at the discretion of the Chair.
Mr. Dewar: All sorts of words such as "dignified" and "delphic" may apply to that remark. At least I have my point on the record and merely leave it there.
I gave the pledge that I would not unnaturally elongate events, especially because it is an unplanned outing caused by a nod from the Government Whips because they could not raise a quorum to keep the normal business going. I shall be debating next week whether such action is in the best interests of Parliament. I do not think that it is and I am not aware of the pressing necessity to justify the Government not allowing one or two Second Readings —not on successive days—and the normal Committee stage to be dispatched in a businesslike manner under the normal procedures.
It further undermines public confidence in the way in which Parliament conducts its work and certainly does not encourage good relations that inevitably make the place run. It is a shame, a bad day and it deprives us of the opportunity to consider matters of real importance. I recognise that the Leader of the House cannot think again because he has unwisely committed himself to this course, but I hope that over the weekend he may, at least, worry whether he was right and justified.
11.57 am
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is important that we should make a few points about the motion.
In the ordinary course of events, the Government use Friday mornings and afternoons to table convenient business resolutions to the effect that there should be a vote by 10 o'clock on that business, and that is understood and accepted. The motion today goes further than anything I can recall and compresses the procedure on two Bills to
634
such an extent that it denies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, proper scrutiny of the legislation.
I draw the attention of the House to what the Bills will do. I always look at the financial effects of a Bill and, as many hon. Members know, I sometimes raise questions on money resolutions that are authorised by Parliament. The Bills mentioned in the motion do not have inconsiderable effects. We have spent much more time debating Bills with much fewer and smaller financial implications. The Bill on social security contributions will increase contributions to the insurance fund by £1·9 billion in a full year, and the Government want to get it through on the nod. When local authorities treat expenditure and revenue in such a cavalier fashion, the Government say that they are irresponsible. They must bear some portion of such criticism themselves.
The Bill also authorises payments of £5·5 billion—a huge sum of money. In the past, Parliaments have fallen into disrepute because they have passed money resolutions on the nod in far too casual a way. Criticisms were made, and some of us tried to stop that procedure.
Some of us try to raise issues on money resolutions. Ministers are now prepared with defensive briefs on money resolutions in case I am in the Chamber, as I generally am. That may be inconvenient, but Parliament is here to ensure that Ministers are inconvenienced and that they have to explain the issues. People sit in the Galleries and think that this is a rowdy place. I take the view that if Parliament is rowdy, a Minister has to be up to the job and has to be able to present his case. It is true that it is easier to get legislation through a meek, quiet assembly of people. Parliament is rowdy because the clash of opinions comes out in the open.
Many other assemblies, such as the French Assembly and the United Nations Assembly, do not have clashes of opinion. The proceedings there are ordered and dull because all the clashes take place in committee rooms beforehand. In the conduct of human affairs, there are bound to be disagreements. In other organisations and institutions, matters are arranged so that everything looks neat and tidy. Parliament is not neat and tidy. It involves angry scenes and exchanges, and Ministers have to be well prepared if they are to put their case effectively.
Shortening the arrangements for the two Bills will remove even background scrutiny and will prevent us from examining them in detail, as we want to do. Our right to table amendments will be limited.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill will reduce public expenditure by £695 million in 1994–95. The figure for the following year will be more than £700 million, and the figure for the year after will be £750 million. The abolition of the recovery of statutory sick pay, under clause 1, will cost employers about £695 million. Should we not debate such costs to employers in some detail and for a reasonable time rather than simply rushing the legislation through because it is convenient for the Government? The position is entirely unsatisfactory.
The guillotine motion will compress the timetable to such a degree that we shall have difficulty in tabling amendments. The Leader of the House knows that I take a particular interest in statutory instruments because I am the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Clause 4 of each Bill will remove the provision for affirmative resolutions for the statutory

635
instruments involved and will put them under the negative procedure. There may be a perfectly good reason for that, which would ordinarily be brought out on Second Reading.
Our procedures on Second Reading are often not a monologue, but a dialogue. Hon. Members frequently give way to Ministers so that they can offer explanations. In the ordinary course of events, we should have an explanation of why the Government seek to remove what I regard as an important safeguard in delegated legislation. We shall not have that chance. The motion removes the normal procedure by which amendments are tabled after Second Reading. Under the normal procedure, we could make a better judgment about whether the Minister had made a good case for an important change.
Many hon. Members do not take too much trouble over delegated legislation and the vast majority of the population do not know what it is about. In fact, everyone is affected by delegated powers and everything is covered by delegated legislation. The Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who took part in the proceedings on the Transport and Works Bill, is in the Chamber and he will remember that we discussed delegated legislation in some detail. Delegated powers cover people from birth to death.
The House has given virtually untrammelled powers to Ministers over the years to the extent that they can now individually change legislation, sometimes through instruments that do not require further parliamentary procedures. That is outrageous. I accept that delegated powers may be necessary because details of Acts sometimes need to be carried out swiftly. In this case, we shall not be given an explanation, so we shall not know whether the fairly important changes under clause 4 of each Bill are justified.
We shall have to table amendments beforehand to retain the affirmative procedure, although that may not be entirely justified; we do not know. Inevitably, many amendments will be tabled, but our discussions will be affected by the guillotine. We do not know the details of the timing because they have not yet been made available to Parliament. We may not have adequate time to discuss all the amendments. I am not talking about tabling 150 or so amendments simply to delay the issue; this is not the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Incidentally, both Bills mentioned in the motion are longer than the Maastricht Bill. We should remember the number of amendments tabled on that Bill, and we should realise that the length of a Bill is no indication of its importance. The argument that these are two small, technical, four-clause Bills is not necessarily a justification for the compressed procedure.
Secondly, there is no question but that the Government have been in office a long time and have grown arrogant and insular. They regard Parliament as a legislative sausage machine that is used for their convenience. Maastricht gave them a shock, because the Prime Minister went off and made an arrangement, and when he came back he found dissension. By and large—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the procedures of the House. I think that his argument is now going rather wide of the motion.
Mr. Cryer: It has always been the custom and practice for Members to be allowed to use examples in passing by
636
way of illustration. When we are debating a motion that rips up the usual parliamentary procedures and deliberately deprives Members of the opportunity of tabling amendments, I think that it is relevant to show the arrogance of the Government who are doing that and the fact that they have had a recent shock over their arrogant attitudes. Unfortunately, the Government have been slipping back into their old pre-Maastricht ways in tabling the motion, because it is convenient for them to do that.
The Government determine the recesses and, as the Leader of the House knows, they have been asked questions about their length and time. In the week leading up to Christmas eve, the Government could have put in an extra two or three days to enable us to consider the Bills. No doubt an extra two or three days would be regarded with mixed feelings by various Members, but I tabled a genuine amendment that we should continue the Session until 23 December. If the amendment had been agreed to, I would have been here, as would several of my hon. Friends, arguing the case.
The Leader of the House cannot say that the motion is necessary because we do not have enough days for the business because the Government determine the parliamentary timetable and the agenda. They could have timetabled an extra two or three days if, as no doubt the Leader of the House will claim, there is a need to get the legislation through for various administrative reasons. If they are being discussed and proposed for administrative reasons, it suggests that the administration is not very good and that the Government are having to bypass the usual parliamentary procedures and use a short cut to get the Bill passed because they had not planned far enough ahead. That seems a pretty shoddy way of dealing with Parliament.
As the Leader of the House knows full well, the torrent of legislation that the Government have produced is an indication of the degree of contempt that the Government have for Parliament. For example, last year they produced a record number of statutory instruments—3,500. The Government must overhaul their attitude towards Parliament and undertake a review of their procedures to ensure that that does not happen again.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the Opposition are always in something of a dilemma, because we want the opportunity —even though it is one with which we do not agree, because it is presented in such limited and absolute terms by the Government—to table amendments. Voting against the motion would deprive us of that opportunity, which would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Although we are opposed to the motion, we must take what little opportunity the Government have proffered. It is like dealing with Bills. Sometimes we hate, oppose and detest legislation that the Government propose. That has been the case with most of the legislation over the past 14 years. What are the Opposition to do? Are we to maintain complete, untrammelled and unqualified opposition, or are we to say that we hate the Bill and the legislation but will try to table minor improvements where we can? By and large, that is the way in which the Opposition work.
I do not think that we shall persuade the Government —they have cloth ears when it comes to these things—so we shall just have to use the machinery provided to table amendments as best we can. I must say to the Leader of the House that the position remains extremely unsatisfactory.

637
What has been done is an abuse of the House. The Leader of the House will no doubt say, "The Labour Government tabled three guillotine motions in a day—
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Five.
Mr. Cryer: Five, then. We certainly used guillotines and, at that time, I endorsed the procedure. But I have changed my mind, and that is not unreasonable because after 14 years a Government can grow too arrogant and too confident of their powers.
We should be chary of the use of guillotines. I hope that we shall also be chary of them after the next general election, when Labour is in power. I say that because. as we all know, it is possible to distinguish between amendments that are meant to improve legislation and safeguard those affected by it and amendments that are tabled simply to spin out a debate.
There are two ways in which the Opposition can deal with proceedings on a Bill. Either they can talk for so long that they force concessions from a Government who want to get their legislation through—that worked fairly satisfactorily in respect of the Transport and Works Act—or they can reach a tacit understanding with the Government about the Committee stage and the way in which amendments are dealt with. They can say, "We will allow the Bill through if we get an extra day on it on the Floor of the House." We all know that such negotiation takes place. We have to judge which approach will best serve the interests of those whom we represent. The motion before us in effect rules that out and prevents us from making such a judgment. We are to be given only very limited scope.
The Government have enjoyed enormous majorities since 1979. Their present majority of 17 is the smallest that they have had since they came to power. We would have given our right arm for such a majority between 1974 and 1979, when we governed with a majority of one until John Stonehouse disappeared, after which we had no majority at all and governed on a minority. Yet, despite their majority, the Government insist on imposing guillotine after guillotine. It is fair to say that the Labour Government were in a somewhat different position from the present Government, who have enjoyed an enormous advantage. [Interruption.] The deputy Chief Whip says, "We are in a mess." He is right: they are in a mess. The hon. Gentleman's comment, uttered sotto voce as he sits on the Treasury Bench in what should be his mute position of inner silence, is correct.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) who is part of what were the usual channels—and I hope at some stage will be so again—has been referred to and cannot reply, I should make it absolutely clear that his words were not, "We are in a mess," but, "They"—the Labour Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member —"were in a mess." With that, I wholly concur.
Mr. Cryer: That just goes to show that Whips should not mutter under their breath: their remarks can be misinterpreted. It sounded to me as though the hon. Gentleman was saying that the Government were in a
638
mess. By saying anything this morning, when the Government have been completely outmanoeuvred, the deputy Chief Whip is going beyond his remit.
The Government should not press the motion. The Leader of the House ought to accept the view that it should be withdrawn, although I suppose that he will press it. As I have said, I regard it as an abuse of Parliament. I have never seen a motion couched in such terms before. We are talking about two important items of legislation involving a massive chunk of expenditure. Incidentally, I hope that the Government will not start talking about accountability as regards local authority expenditure because their behaviour shows clearly that they want merely to rubber-stamp the expenditure of huge sums. It is simply not good enough.
I hope that, having listened to our brief debate, the Leader of the House will decide not to go ahead. I hope that he will give us the usual amount of time, either extending our proceedings beyond 17 December, which we should be quite happy to accept, or deferring the Committee stage until we return on 11 January, which is only a few weeks off. We can then get down to the job of examining the whole thing properly and giving the legislation the sort of scrutiny that we are used to. It is a sad day when legislation is rushed through in such a manner and when Parliament is given such short shrift.
12.14 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What a difference a day makes. The Leader of the House was present and on time yesterday when he announced the business for next week. He wants to introduce a guillotine on a proposal that will rip off millions of people through extra taxation. That is what national insurance contributions are all about. They are a form of tax. The Government profess to be a low taxation Government, but they are not a low taxation Government at all. What they do is switch taxes; it is either value added tax going up or, as in this case, national insurance contributions going up.
Let us be fair about it—tax increases are in the Budget. The Budget can have as many as five or six days of debate on the Floor of the House and the Bill then goes to Committee. Many years ago, debates on a Finance Bill could last for five, six or seven weeks. Most of its stages had to be completed by 20 July and, before then, extensive debate took place. We might not have liked the results, but at least we used to have major debates about tax increases.
The motion has been tabled today because of what the Leader of the House announced yesterday. It is not personal, but he is being pushed by others in the Cabinet who are so full of arrogance and contempt for the British people that they have decided to push through next week, without any proper debate, a tax increase which will affect all workers and employers.
I could understand it if the House did not have sufficient time for debate. I mentioned the other week, and yesterday, that 1993 has been a non-election year. I have calculated that the House of Commons will have been in session for only seven months by 17 December, the date of finishing for Christmas. It is an outrage. Why did not the Government accept the motion tabled by myself and my hon. Friends last week, when we proposed that Parliament should sit for an extra week up to 24 December? What is wrong with that? A lot of people out there have to work until Christmas eve; they cannot pack up on 17 December.
Mr. Don Dixon: Santa Clause does not come down their chimney until 25 December.
Mr. Skinner: I packed up believing in Santa Clause at the same time that I packed up believing in the royal family, when I was about three. He did not do me much good, being in a family of 10 just before the war.
There is plenty of time. Anybody out there who watches "Westminster Live" would ask why Parliament is not sitting the week after next week. We have done it before. It is not as though Parliament has risen every year on 17 December. There have been a few odd occasions when we rose earlier, but generally we have gone on to 21 or 22 December and, on occasions, to 23 December.
The Government do not want anybody to oppose them. They have become used to power and they are contemptuous of anybody having the guts to take them on. They say, "We will get the Leader of the House to move the motion quickly. There will not be too many people there and nobody will notice." As it happened, it was spotted by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, and we said, "We are not having it; it is not playing the game to put up taxes in a day, without proper scrutiny."
Mr. Cryer: The Government say that they are short of time and that they must get the legislation through. My hon. Friend will recall that the Jopling report, which the Government back would close down Parliament even more. In that event, we would have no time at all and the Government would escape scot free from the scrutiny that they richly deserve.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has taken a strong position against the Jopling report, as I have, and one or two others, including my hon. Friend the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip—I do not know whether I can speak for him on this occasion, but I think that it is fair to say that he holds strong views on it.
It may seem all right to get rid of another day or week spent in Parliament—it is organised truancy—but let us face it, the Opposition's job is to oppose. That is why I hope that all my hon. Friends, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will oppose the Jopling report. I do not know whether they will, but I hope that they understand that, although we might be in the minority in the House, we have a chance to stand up and speak and to vote on important issues.
I am pleased that we had a vote this morning—I say that en passant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because the Government lost their majority. In fact, they did not have a quorum. Those Tory Members who are in favour of next week's guillotine, which will enable the Government to increase people's taxes, were not here to vote this morning. Only 20 of them voted and I did not see any members of the Cabinet, apart from the Chief Whip. The Leader of the House was missing.
Mr. Cryer: Good God.
Mr. Skinner: He had to be brought here, as well as others, but it was too late. The big vote today was just after 10 am. Tory Members are not used to being here at this time. Parliament starts at 2.30 pm Monday to Thursday and they do not realise that one has to get here for at least 10.30 am on Fridays.
The Leader of the House may be the innocent in all this. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was
640
pushed into tabling the motion and, yesterday, he probably thought that no one would be here today. The Government's behaviour is outrageous. They tell the House that a guillotine will be imposed next week and they then say to all the Tory Members," Go on, pack up for the holidays. You are on a four-day week."
Mr. John Marshall: That is what the Leader of the Opposition has signed up to.
Mr. Skinner: I believe in a four-day week for workers. When that is offered to every worker in Britain, Parliament can have it as well, but not until then. Four million people do not have a job and it would be a great idea to have a four-day for workers because that would give young lasses and lads the chance to have a job.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Skinner: I am on a different tack and I know that I must keep in order, because this is a narrow procedural motion. Should my hon. Friend intervene, I hope that he will do so on a straightforward procedural basis.
The Government have a cheek to flaunt their power. We gave them the opportunity last Friday to extend the debate on the Bills when we tabled our amendment, which was voted on. The Tories only managed to muster 99 votes then. That was a few more than today. I wonder where they go to. It is pretty clear that the Government told them to pack up and come back on Monday to pass the guillotine motion. The Government told them to refresh themselves and then come back to attack the working-class people. The tax increase also represents an attack on the middle class—all those Tory voters who have got pampas grass in their gardens in Surrey and everywhere else. They will be hit as well.
The Tory Government have dealt with the miners, the steelworkers and the shipyard workers. Now they are attacking their own middle class. No wonder they will get clobbered at the next election. We should have that election now. Instead of debating the motion, we should be debating a resignation motion, because I believe that 90 per cent. of the electorate, or perhaps 80 per cent.—I do not want to over-egg the pudding—want this lot out. They are fed up with all the Government's attacks. The tax increases are yet another one, right at the end of the autumn part of the Session.
I do not know whether it would have been possible to discuss the legislation in January. The Government would still have got it through in time to fit in with the appropriate resolutions. So why have all the rush? I can only assume that they had a gathering of the Cabinet, and they said, "I will tell you what; there will not be many there next week. Some of them will have gone—bobbied off. Let's slip it through in the week before Christmas." Well, some of us are not going to have it and that is why we call upon the Leader of the House. He got a bloody nose this morning and so did the Government—I am speaking metaphorically. The Government got a bloody nose this morning and the Leader of the House was not even here to carry through his business. Someone said to me that they lost a debate this morning. I said, "I did not lose a debate; all I did was move a procedural motion." All that the Government had to do was to bring 40 people in.
Mr. Dixon: Thirty-five.
Mr. SkinnerThirty-five plus the Tellers and the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. The people who lost the business this morning were the Government. They have a duty to have 40 people here. I have heard them attack the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, but whatever attacks have been made—I have made a few myself, as a matter of fact—during that period we were never in a position of not having a quorum. We always made sure that we had people here during 1974 and 1979, when we were living on the breadline. We made sure that we had the requisite number of people here.
That is why we are debating this subject now. Why are we debating it now? We are debating it because the Government lost their business this morning. That shows that perhaps the Government, having attacked all those sections of the people, are getting weary. Perhaps it is the fag end of the Government. Perhaps they really have lost; they have run out of steam and they have lost control. It does happen.
There was a feeling like that in 1979, after those five years. I say that in a non-political fashion. It does happen.
Mr. Cryer: Of course.
Mr. Skinner: I think that the Government are running out of steam.
I do not think that Lady Thatcher would have allowed what has happened this morning to happen. She did some terrible things—she attacked working-class people left, right and centre—but I do not believe in my guts that she would have had fewer than 40 people here this morning. If they had not been here, there would have been blood on the carpet.
I do not know what will happen to the Government Whips. I see the Deputy Whip here now, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). He was here this morning, along with the Chief Whip, but half his staff were missing. It is really coming to summat, is it not?
Mr. Cryer: They are collapsing.
Mr. Skinner: It is coming to something when the Lords Commissioners, as they call them, are not even present. That is why we are debating the subject now. The Government are losing control of the House.
Mr. Cryer: They get paid extra money.
Mr. Skinner: There is another reason why the Government are in trouble on a Friday morning, which is worth remembering. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who stands at the Bar of the House, has just prompted me to say it. The reason they are in trouble on a Friday—and they would like to get rid of Friday—is that on Friday we start at half-past 9 and the courts are still open. Hon. Members who are on a City board of directors as non-executive members, such as, say, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who just left one that went bankrupt, Queen's Moat House—it is a real scandal, and he ran away just before the colloquial so-and-so hit the fan—cannot get here on a Friday. Those people, who come after half-past 2 on Monday to Thursday, obviously cannot get here on a Friday because they are in the courts, making money hand over fist. Guinness—
Mr. Ken Livingstonewill my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Skinner: I shall let my hon. Friend intervene because we have to get back to the narrow procedural motion.
Mr. Livingstone: Has my hon. Friend read Suetonius's "Twelve Caesars"? That describes an identical procedural position. When Julius Caesar was having trouble getting something through the senate, which was dominated by reactionaries, he always called a special meeting of the senate on Friday because so many of the rich reactionaries had gone home to their country estates and he could always get things through. There seems to be the same problem with the Government today. After 2000 years, the rich and the corrupt still have trouble working on a Friday.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Let us now get back to the narrow motion.
Mr. Cryer: But Caesar did have a point.
Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I do not want to stray, except to say, in passing, that Caesar got done by his own, did he not, just like Thatcher?
So history repeats itself. Look at them sitting on the Government Front Bench. They support this narrow procedural motion. There used to be a pair of knee pads in Mrs. Thatcher's office for when they got on their hands and knees to grovel to her. As soon as her back was turned it was—I was going to say it was, "Hail Major", but it was not really. Most of them would like to get rid of him now because he does not know whether he is on this earth or fuller's earth.
As you reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are talking about why the Government should not have moved this narrow procedural motion today. It is worth remembering that if the Government had not lost their business today, we would not have debated the motion. If we had proceeded through the normal business, the motion would have been moved at 2.30 pm. We might have objected to it and that would have been the end of it. I am right, am I not?
Mr. Dixon indicated assent.
Mr. Skinner: We are debating the motion because of what happened earlier today. The Government have had their chance. They could have debated the measure the week after next. They could have moved an amendment to our amendment which proposed that the House rise for the Christmas recess on 24 December. The Government could have moved a compromise amendment proposing that the House rise on 22 December and we could have had more time to debate the measure.
It is outrageous for the Government to table a motion which will allow a measure to raise taxes throughout Britain to be pushed through in one day. If this had happened in the Soviet Union 10 or 15 years ago, it would have been expected. People would have said, "Well, that's par for the course. That's what they do here."
The Government are so contemptuous in the use of their power and think that they are going to be here for ever that they believe that they can do what they like. What we have done today is to shove a locker in the tub wheel, as we say in the pit, to stop the train from moving further. At some point, the Government must understand that they are out of step with people outside.
The Government are out of step on the question of tax and also in relation to the health service and housing.

643
People are living on the streets while others live in the lap of luxury. The Government are not building houses. Those are the kind of issues that we should be debating. We should not be debating this narrow procedural motion. We should be debating a motion to allow local authorities to build houses in every town and city in Britain to put roofs over people's heads. Why did not the Leader of the House table such a motion?
Why are we not talking today about education and the fact that we need to spend £4 billion on repairs to schools? That shows the size of the problem. That spending would allow us to put people back to work. That is the kind of subject that we should be debating instead of this narrow procedural motion.
We could also be debating about the pits and arguing that all the pits should be kept open. Instead of debating this narrow procedural motion, we should be debating the reasons why we are throwing thousands of miners and others out of work. What this Government have got away with is a scandal.
More than 1 million people are on NHS waiting lists. It used to be said that we had to have nuclear weapons to stop the Russians from invading Britain. I said then that I did not believe that the Russians would want to join NHS waiting lists. It is all crazy.
At the fag end of this part of the Session we are talking about raising taxes once again, without any proper debate in Parliament. This is a debate about democracy and free speech. It is about gagging people who have the guts to stand up to this mob.
Mr. Livingstone: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that it is being reported on the tapes that the Government have collapsed in Parliament today and have lost control of the agenda and that this is the first victory following the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition of a policy of non-co-operation with the Government as a result of the way in which business is being managed. Does my hon. Friend believe that we may see further disasters for the Government, with more business lost, more incompetence and more mismanagement as signs of a Government who are beginning to lose their grip?
Mr. Skinnerrose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may believe that, but we are discussing a narrow motion. I have already pointed that out and I should be grateful if the hon. Member would address his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Skinner: I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) down that road because you have made it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are considering a narrow procedural motion. I was about to say—this is in order—that, instead of having this narrow procedural motion, we should be talking about the problems of the people outside this place. [Interruption.] We could not do that because the Government had not got a majority here in order to keep it going. Tory Members should not blame Labour Members. None of my hon. Friends voted this morning, although they could have done so. They could have defeated the Government.
644
I hear about the Common Market Commissioners and the way in which they do things and about the lack of democracy in the Common Market. Not only do I hear people talk about it; I know that it is true. That is why I am against the Common Market. The Government are learning the methods of those commissars or commissioners in the Common Market—perhaps I was right the first time—by conducting business in this way. It is high time they understood that there are 651 Members of Parliament and about 270 represent the Labour party. The Tory party has about 230 Members of Parliament, so the Government should not assume that they can steamroller things through. They do not have a majority of 150 or 100, as they had in the past. They should understand that Parliament is more clearly divided now and they do not have that massive majority. The Government have been taught a lesson this morning. They have been shown that they do not have a majority all the time.
The Government should allow debate to take place in a proper manner. We should not be putting taxes up in the course of one day. That is why I hope that, on reflection the Leader of the House will decide not to move the motion but accept that there should be more than one day's debate and that, if necessary, we should continue until 22, 23 or 24 December fully to debate the tax increases.
12.36 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Before I make one or two observations about what has been said in the debate, I simply acknowledge that, with his usual courtesy, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) told me that he was not able to stay very long after his speech from the Labour Front Bench because of long-standing commitments. Of course, I want to make it clear that I understand that and do not regard it as discourtesy.
If I am allowed to use rather less tempered language and fall into the vernacular, much of what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said is completely up the creek. It was not Government business this morning which the Government had a duty to protect; it was private Members' business.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might just finish. There was a private Member's motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) on a number of business and industry matters including the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman said we should be discussing. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's manoeuvre, those matters have not been discussed and we are now discussing this procedural motion. There is no question of the Government's not being in control. The hon. Gentleman has wrecked private Members' business and demolished an opportunity to discuss the things that he said we should be talking about.
Mr. Skinner: Let us get this on the record. I agree that the first three items of business today were private Members' business. But the next series of items is Government business. We are now debating Government business because the Government put down their motion. Do not let the Leader of the House kid anyone outside the

645
House and in the media that Friday is not about Government business. Government business is on this agenda.
The truth is that the Government had a duty to protect the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), who moved the original motion. Any decent Government would have had 40 Members here to protect him. The truth is that I did not lose any business, the hon. Gentleman did not lose any business and my hon. Friends did not lose any business. The Government shot the hon. Gentleman in the back.
Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I entered the building this morning, I was told by a Tory Member that they had been told by their Whips to continue at sufficient length to ensure that my motion was not reached.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Newton: I repeat that what the hon. Member for Bolsover did today was effectively to wreck private Members' business, not Government business. He deprived the House of an opportunity to discuss exactly the sort of matters which he spent 10 minutes saying we should be talking about. His case simply does not stand up.
Mr. Cryer: Is the Leader of the House saying that if private Members' business had operated in the normal way, the important motion that the Government have tabled would not have been debated at all, and would have been put through on the nod?
Mr. Newton: That would have depended on the hon. Gentleman and on his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Garscadden acknowledged that the motion is helpful in the context in which we are talking—and I emphasise "in the context"—by stating that he did not intend to oppose the motion. It allows amendments to be made in a more orderly and straightforward way than would otherwise be possible. If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had been here and had objected to it, the motion would not have been passed.
Mr. Dixon: Does the Leader of the House accept that the reason that the motion is down is that the Government are trying to put the Bill through in one day? Will not that allow amendments prior to Second Reading?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is quite right on the background to the situation, which was why I emphasised that it was helpful in the context in which we are talking. We are talking about how the Bill should be dealt with next week. Such a motion would also have been required if the House had been dealing with the Bill in two days next week. There would still not have been a sufficient interval between day one and day two for the amendments to be unstarred. In those circumstances, the Government would have tabled a motion of this kind also.
Despite what was said earlier, there is nothing particularly unusual about the motion, although I accept that the situation more usually arises when there has been agreement in the usual channels to deal with such things rapidly. That is not the background in this case. Nevertheless, there is nothing unusual about the motion in the circumstances where the House is asked to deal with something in one day or a couple of days. A motion of this kind facilitates the tabling of amendments on that basis.
646
The hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that he did not intend to oppose it, even though he did not like the background.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am intervening only because I have never heard such utter baloney as I have heard this morning from the maverick hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
Had this been a Government day and had the Labour party felt as strongly as the maverick hon. Gentleman pretends that it does, would the Opposition Benches be so empty? Clearly it is not a Government day, but a private Members' day. Will not the way in which the hon. Gentleman is behaving only prejudice the type of argument that he says we ought to be having?
Mr. Newton: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and it links with one that I had been tempted to make myself. I had almost decided not to make the point, but I have been tempted back again. When the hon. Member for Bolsover spoke so vigorously in favour of the House sitting almost until it was time for Christmas lunch, the number of hon. Members that he could persuade to be here to vote against my proposal for the dates of the recess was precisely five, if I remember rightly. That was out of a total number of about 650 hon. Members, excluding the Chair.
Mr. Cryer: There were seven, including the Tellers.
Mr. Newton: Well, all right. That takes the figure fractionally above 1 per cent. of the total number of Members of Parliament.
I will make two other points quickly, because I do not want to detain the House for too long. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) gave the impression that, as Leader of the House, I had been scattering guillotines about like confetti. This is only the fourth guillotine in well over 18 months during which I have been the Leader of the House. I suspect that that has been a more sparing record than most in recent times. The figure contrasts with the five in one day which were once announced by the former right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—that is how I most clearly remember him—Michael Foot.
I will make one other factual point quickly to the hon. Gentleman. I have been advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People that the type of secondary procedures that are involved in such Bills—that is to say negative rather than affirmative—mirrors the existing procedures. We shall look further at the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Skinner: He has just got out of bed.
Mr. Hughes: I was here earlier. Things have moved on since then. I apologise that I was not here for the beginning of the debate. I wish to ask the Leader of the House a simple factual question about the motion.
Mr. Greg Knight (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
Mr. Hughes: I apologised that I was not here for the beginning of the debate. I was here earlier. I have been away and come back.
If the motion is defeated, will it be possible to go through the proceedings on the Bill? The normal procedure

647
is that hon. Members can table amendments and so on only after Second Reading. If no motion has been passed to change that procedure, would the Government be unable to complete the proceedings in a day, irrespective of amendments?
Mr. Newton: Such guidance more properly belongs to the Chair. If I may venture into this delicate field—unless the Chair wishes to venture into it—I think that under those circumstances there would be many requests for the Chair to accept manuscript amendments between Second Reading and the Committee stage. I see that you are about to be helpful to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, all amendments would become manuscript amendments.
Mr. Newton: As I suspected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have confirmed in your ever-helpful way what I could not say so definitely. I am grateful to you for stating that, in those circumstances, the Chair would accept manuscript amendments. So rejection of the motion would not prevent proceedings on the Bill.
I accept that people do not like what I have said that I shall propose next week. In that context, it has been acknowledged in various quarters that the motion is designed to be helpful to the House. It is designed to facilitate the drafting and tabling of amendments in a sensible way.
I do not need to make a huge number of further points, but I wish to make a few. I do not wish to stray out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A fair number of points have been made which perhaps relate more properly to the timetable motion that we shall table than to today's motion. I accept that the motions are a little difficult to disentangle.
It has been suggested that there has been hardly any time to reflect on or discuss the proposal on national insurance contributions. The proposal was announced in the March Budget this year. That was followed by five days of Budget debate. The proposal has been referred to in a variety of other debates by Opposition spokesmen in the intervening period. The proposal was also an integral part of the judgment in the latest Budget, on which we had a six-day debate.
The proposal was also in the Queen's Speech, so one could say that that was another four or five days of opportunity for debate on national insurance contributions. There have been at least 15 days on which hon. Members had the opportunity to debate the national insurance contributions proposal announced last March.
I accept that there has not been such an extensive opportunity to debate the proposal on statutory sick pay. Nevertheless, it is a public expenditure proposal produced in the context of the first unified Budget. At the request of the Opposition, we had an extra day of Budget debate. It was increased from five to six days specifically to allow further discussion of the public expenditure proposals. Not only has there been the opportunity to debate the national insurance proposal, but many references were made to the statutory sick pay proposal.
It has been suggested that the reason for today's motion is the convenience of the Government. That is not the case. The position is this. The national insurance proposals taken broadly—not specifically the proposals for which the Bill is required but the other proposals on employers'
648
contributions—and the SSP proposals go hand in hand. If they are to be implemented in an orderly and sensible way as part of the Budget judgment, which is designed to ensure the continued economic recovery, they must be implemented at the beginning of the next financial year, in April.
We are talking about proposals which affect every firm in Britain, including many with massive payroll systems. Implementation needs to start by March at the latest. Before implementation, extensive secondary legislation needs to be prepared and passed, with the details discussed in the House. Unless we proceed in such a way, we shall not be able to carry through important ingredients of our policy, which are essential to the economic interests of the nation, and to do so in a manner with which businesses could be expected to cope sensibly. That is the basis for our actions.
As I have said, there will be many opportunities for debate. The Bills are very short—although I accept that the Maastricht Bill was also short—and are effectively only one clause, which will have the major effect that we are discussing. One Bill will increase national insurance contributions and the other will change the reimbursement for statutory sick pay. Those are the key clauses and they are basically simple propositions. The detail will come later, in secondary legislation. The national insurance re-rating exercise will be further debated in the House when the necessary instruments are introduced.
Against that background, it is not reasonable to suggest that the Government are somehow trying to steamroller things through. They are trying to achieve a sensible basis on which to proceed with the detail, which can be the subject of further examination and discussion.
In order not to trespass further on the time of the House, I shall conclude on the following two matters that did not seem to be fully understood, judging from some of the contributions to the debate. Repeated references have been made to the changes to national insurance contributions as if they were the same as a variety of other tax increases. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the national insurance fund operates on the basis that this year's contributions pay for this year's benefits, which are overwhelmingly retirement pensions. The money is required to ensure that the fund has a sound basis from which it can continue to pay those benefits and against a background in which, in line with something that the hon. Member for Garscadden is reported to have said in the papers, the Government have announced a significant increase, over and above the normal, in retirement pensions —the increase in relation to value added tax on fuel, which has to be paid out of the fund.
The national insurance proposal is not the same as any other tax increase, but is related to the need to meet the Government's and the country's commitments to retired people and to many others who are dependent on payments out of the national insurance fund.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that he was not sure of the effects of the changes in statutory sick pay on industry and that there had been talk of some compensation package. The effects are very clear. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proposal will reduce public spending by about £700 million a year, but the Government are also proposing to reduce the main rates of employers' national insurance contributions by 0·2 per cent. from next April and the lower rates by one percentage point. Those reductions in employers' contributions, which are the other

649
side of the package, will be worth about £830 million, rising to £1 billion by 1996–97.
The net effect of the package of changes to statutory sick pay and employers' national insurance contributions, even allowing for one or two other factors that it could be argued need to be taken into account, is a reduction of at least £100 million in the costs imposed on British industry, but perhaps those are matters for debate when we come to the issues in other ways next week.
I shall not trespass further on the time of the House, but I must emphasise that further opportunities for debate will be properly provided by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill and the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a Second time.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill and Statutory Sick Pay Bill

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Kim Howells be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. George Mudie be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Paul Kenney
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
12.53 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful for the chance to bring to the attention of the House the awful tragedy of the death of my constituent, Paul Kenney, in Portugal, and I am happy to have the opportunity to do so in a much fuller way than would normally have been the case.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), not merely because they have provided me with extra time, which was not precisely the purpose of their enterprise, but especially for having, in true parliamentary style, shown the Government that this place is not merely for Government action. It is also for the Opposition and Back Benchers, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to put this matter before the House; through the House, to the nation; and, through the nation, to the Portuguese authorities and to their ambassador, who have behaved in a way that I did not believe possible for a civilised nation that belongs to our so-called European Union.
First, I shall outline the facts. Paul Kenney, aged 23, was found on a beach in Portimao, in Portugal, on 17 July this year. His neck was broken and his skull was smashed in. His family did not discover that he had died until four weeks later, despite many visits to the police and to hospital. They still do not know whether he was alive when he was taken to hospital, nor the cause of death, and they have been unable to get adequate information from the Portuguese authorities.
As a result of all that and my bleak failure to extract information from the Portuguese, the family have decided that there is only one way that they might ever find out what happend to their son—through parliamentary action. They wish to emphasise that they hope that, by taking such action, they will spare other parents and families from the tragedy that they have suffered and are suffering.
Members of the Kenney family were not in Portugal on holiday but as a result of another disaster—they could not get jobs in this country. Mr. and Mrs. Kenney went to Portugal from my Leicester constituency because they could not get jobs and had no prospect of getting jobs, so they bought a bar in Portimao. But, because of lack of business, Paul and Mr. Kenney came back. The father worked in a hosiery factory in Leicester and, although Paul Kenney was a qualified electrician, he could not find work in Leicester and did odd jobs back in Portimao.
So the Kenneys were not just passing by. They were not itinerants nor in Portugal for a brief holiday. They have a base in Portugal and a home in Portimao. The home had a telephone number and there were numbers on the body of the deceased when he went into hospital, a fact that becomes highly relevant.
I have a copy of Mrs. Kenney's statement, and the Portuguese ambassador has had the gall impliedly to criticise her for not providing a statement and to ask whether she will now make one. She has given statements; she has had not been visited by the police to ask whether she will help; and she has no kindness, sympathy, co-operation or help from a Government who are meant to be civilised and part of our decent world.

651
Mrs. Kenney tells me:
"I last saw my son Paul Kenney at 9.15 pm on Friday 16 July 1993 before he went to Praia da Rocha for the evening."
She said that it was not unusual for her not to see Paul for a little while but that she became worried when a friend phoned six days later to say that he had not turned up to help him as promised with a job on his swimming pool. She said:
"After two days of looking for Paul, I went to the Portimao hospital on 23 July 1993 with a Portuguese friend, taking Paul's passport, to inquire whether anyone had been admitted"—
anyone of his description—
"suffering memory loss, or unconscious or dead. The receptionist checked the computer and also checked a list of names which went back to 16 July 1993, but there was no record of any such admittance. All the time my son was lying next door in the morgue."
On the same evening of 23 July, Mrs. Kenney and her husband went to report their son as missing to the special police. They gave them a description of Paul's tattoo and a recent photograph and passport. They went back to the police on 24 and 25 July, and they were told that there was no news, that it was not known where their son was, that he had never been heard of, that he was not in that hospital and that there was no record of him.
On Friday 13 August 1993, four weeks after the boy died, the police rang and said that the parents should go to the hospital in Portimao, the same hospital where they had been told that neither Paul, nor anyone of that description, had been admitted. It was at that hospital that they later found their son in the morgue. He had been there, they were told, for four weeks, so he must have been there on 23 July.
Paul's father told me that, when he and his wife went to the hospital, they were told that their son had drowned. When they saw him in the morgue, he was fully dressed. The hospital said that it had no identification for him and yet Paul's dry wallet—it was not wet—was lying beside him, and it contained plenty of identification.
At the time, the police told the parents that they thought that Paul had drowned. The mother said that she had not believed that, as Paul would not have gone swimming fully clothed at that time of night. They went back to the hospital the following day for Paul's belongings. Hospital staff said that there were no clothes or other belongings, and that Paul had come to the hospital with only his shorts on. The staff said that it was possible that Paul had been swimming and had drowned, and that they had none of his clothes. They said that they had in their possession a doctor's report saying that he had fallen and broken his neck and skull. Yet the hospital had told his parents that Paul had drowned.
The parents were asked to leave and they refused. Another woman came with a bit of paper and took them to another building, to which they had been once and been told that none of Paul's possessions were contained there. Eventually, Paul's parents were given their son's wallet. It contained a small amount of money, his keys and seven local telephone numbers, and his bank number. The parents asked why, if the officials had the numbers, they had not phoned the home or the bank. They asked why hospital staff had not checked and whether they did not care. They asked why the staff had not made any attempt to find out who the boy was and why they did not give the information to the police. They asked why the police did not question the hospital and when the police found Paul in the morgue.
652
An autopsy had been performed on Paul on 10 August; on 13 August, the officials saw fit to tell the bereaved parents that their son was lying dead in the morgue. Eventually we extracted a copy of the death certificate, of which I have a translation. It does not take the matter forward much. It gives his name and details, such as the fact that he was an electrician. It states:
"Burial:
After the statutory period".
The parents told me that they would have wished to bring the body to Britain for another autopsy and to be buried here, but they could not afford it, so he was cremated and his ashes returned. They gave me the name of the so-called doctor. The document states that Paul was treated in a hospital establishment. The parents wanted to know whether he was treated, whether he was alive when he got to the hospital and, if he was alive, what treatment he was given. The officials said that Paul could not have been swimming because he was in his shorts, but he was not in his shorts.
In another life, I used to present cases against people for such criminal negligence. I have found no word in the English language to describe my contempt for those people, who showed, and still show, a total lack of decency and care, and who have failed to investigate this awful tragedy. Lo and behold, on the same report it says that there was cranial and brain stem injury due to an accidental fall. There then follows a question mark. In other words, it may or may not have happened that way. The father said he went to where the incident occurred and said that there was a cliff, but who knows whether or why his son was on a cliff and fell?
As the tale unfolds and the way in which people have prevaricated becomes apparent, one can understand why the family and I believe that there is far more to the story than meets the eye and why the entire disgraceful episode stinks of a cover-up.
The Kenneys did their best to find out what had happened to their son. I wish to pay tribute to the way in which our consuls all over the world help British citizens who are in trouble. I pay tribute to the diplomatic staff. I have seen them at work and they have helped my constituents over and over again for almost a quarter of a century.
I wish that I could pay similar tribute to the consul in this case—an isolated incident. The parents said that when they visited the consul concerned he told them to get a lawyer. That was not too helpful as they had already done so. The Minister will need to do some research on why that happened. If the consul had done his job properly, I do not believe that this problem would have arisen. The top job of a consul is not to help British people who have lost their passport or who have run out of money or who are in prison, although they are important tasks. The top job of a consul is to deal with a death and to help relatives to trace the person concerned. I hope that the Minister will take action and possibly appoint a new honorary consul in that town.
On 20 August, a month after the incident occurred, His Excellency Dr. Jose Manuel T. G. Pearce de Azevedo, the British consul, received the following letter regarding the subject from the harbour captain in Portimao:
"Regarding the subject raised in your memorandum… I am informing that as a matter of fact it was reported to this Office that an accident had taken place in Praia da Rocha on the 17th July … around 0045 hours, from which resulted the death of the person involved in the same.

653
It was not possible, at the time, to establish the identity of the person,"
I am not allowed to say that a Member of the House is lying, but I hope that I can say it is a blatant, appalling and disgraceful lie to say that they did not know who he was when his wallet was on the body. I am shocked that anyone in any position of authority in a country that is alleged to be civilised could behave in such a way. The letter continues by saying that identification is still not possible. Yet, by 20 August, Mr. Kenney had been identified, the police had told his parents and they had been to the hospital. For the consul to say that the body could not be identified is not inefficiency, but gross criminal negligence of the most disgusting kind.
The letter also says:
"… Report of the incident was sent to the State Attorney in the Judicial Court of Portimao, who took over the proceedings, and to whom your Excellency should address all enquiries regarding the subject.
Best regards,"
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene, but it may be convenient to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not in order to criticise someone from a friendly country except on a substantive motion. I think that he will understand that.
Mr. Janner: I understand it, but I shall seek the best way to get round it as I do not regard a friendly nation as one that says that it cannot identify a body when identity has already been established in the morgue, and when it does not inform the parents of the death. In deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall read out the correspondence and the early-day motion. I hope that that will be appropriate.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The case speaks for itself.
Mr. Janner: I thank the hon. Gentleman, it does speak for itself. If the authorities are not ashamed of themselves, they should be.
After the Kenney family had failed to get any information about the death of their son—about how and why it had happened—they came to me. I am so pleased that they did. My job is to look after people like them and at least I could share their frustration. I immediately telephoned the ambassador who was, allegedly, away. The embassy promised that the ambassador would contact me; of course he did not. I contacted the ambassador on 20 September, on 22 October, on 9 November, on 22 November and on 29 November, and I have got nowhere at all.
A fax was sent to the ambassador in which my very able assistant Jessica Bawden wrote:
"As discussed in Mr. Janner's telephone conversation this morning, please would you ask the Ambassador to look at this urgent case on his return and could you also call to confirm receipt of the fax."
The reply, I am afraid, got us absolutely nowhere. It was not from the ambassador, but from a junior official.
The first thing I got out of the ambassador was on 26 October when I had written to complain. The first reply was from the first secretary. The ambassador himself did not even bother to answer. The first secretary wrote:
"His Excellency the Ambassador"—
whom I am not allowed to criticise because he is the ambassador of a friendly nation—
654
"has asked me to acknowledge your letter of the 7th October concerning Mr. Paul Kenney's death in Portugal last July, and to let you know that your letters have already been conveyed to the appropriate Portuguese authorities.
I can assure you that there is no reluctance whatsoever from my authorities to help Mr. Kenney's parents finding out the circumstances that took place regarding this very sad event".
That is how Mr. Kenney's death was described; the letter was in English and was not a translation. The letter continued:
"once all the necessary procedures to establish the facts are completed, my authorities will notify us of their findings and conclusions.
I will not fail to contact you as soon as a reply is received." That was written on 15 October.
Unfortunately, we got nowhere. On 22 October, I wrote the following letter to the ambassador personally:
"I have now been serving my constituents for 23 years and I have never been treated by any Ambassador with such discourtesy as you have seen fit to accord to me in connection with the case of the Kenney family. When I first raised this tragic and urgent matter with your Embassy, you were away and I was assured that you would contact me personally on your return. You did not. I was then promised that the matter would be dealt with in your country as a matter of urgency. It was not. And now I have received a letter from your First Secretary, again delaying.
There is a normal courtesy in this country that when a Member of Parliament writes to a Minister or to an Ambassador, he or she receives at least a personal reply. You have not even had the decency to do that, in a case involving the death of a constituent in your country.
I now propose to see my constituents next week and, if they agree, to start an open parliamentary campaign. I was under the impression that—normal kindnesses and courtesies apart—you would want to avoid the inevitable, massive and adverse publicity that your country will receive—from all sections of the Press —about this terrible tragedy.
As I have always had good relations with your predecessors"—
That is not quite accurate. There was an occasion when there were leaks from gas heaters in the Algarve, as some hon. Members may remember. One of my constituents was killed and the Portuguese were not very helpful then. However, I was trying to be as friendly as my good nature would permit, which is not very friendly. My letter continued by saying that I had
"a warm regard for Portugal—I thought I would write you this strictly personal letter, in a final attempt to evoke a response from you and action from your authorities."
The reply from the ambassador was as follows:
"I very much regret the impression you got about the way Mr. Kenney's case is being handled by this Embassy.
After your first contact with the Chargéd'Affaires, the matter was urgently referred to our authorities and the First Secretary's letter only confirmed that a subsequent request of information was made to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
As you will know these matters tend to take some time to be fully investigated".
That letter was written on 26 October, yet we still do not know how this young man died.
The reply continued:
"We quite understand the distress of Mr. Kenney's family".
The Portuguese authorities "quite understand" it? They do not apologise and they do not say that they are sorry for the way in which they handled the matter. They do not even offer a word of sympathy. They say:
"We quite understand the distress Mr. Kenney's family and your concern with this problem, but I can assure you that all efforts are being made by this Embassy to speed up the matter".
If that is how they make "all efforts", I wonder what happens when they do not. Matters would not get very far. My reply on 9 November, after waiting a while, said:
"Thank you for your letter of the 26th October. Please would you inform your authorities that, in my view and in that of the family, there is no excuse whatever for the massive delay in

655
responding to this tragic complaint. In view of your letter, I shall withhold parliamentary action until the start of the next session. If precise results are not available by the 16th November, then it would be wrong for me to resist any further my constituents' massive anger at the way they have been treated and I shall raise the matter in Parliament without further delay."
We go nowhere.
On 22 November, I wrote another letter:
"Not having had even the courtesy of a reply to my letter to you, I am now raising this disgraceful matter in Parliament and with the Foreign Secretary. I am shocked that your country would see fit to behave in the way that it has done—and, if I may respectfully say so, I have never known an Embassy to treat a Member of Parliament in a matter involving a death of this sort with such total lack of concern.
The only documentation that has now been received is from your Ministry of Marine—and I enclose copies for your information— just in case you are interested."
He was not.
On 29 November, I wrote another letter to the alleged ambassador:
"I have failed to get results by any other means and I now enclose the Early Day Motion which I shall table in the House this week. I am so sorry that you have seen fit to handle this tragedy in such an unworthy fashion. I have always had deep respect for your great country and I am shocked that you and your authorities would see fit to behave in this way.
I am sending copies of the Early Day Motion and of this correspondence to the Foreign Secretary".
I also informed him that I would seek a debate, which happily today I have secured.
Early-day motion 155 reads:
"That this House condemns the Portuguese Government and authorities for its failure to investigate the tragic death of Paul Kenney, whilst on holiday in Portugal in July; is outraged that the Portuguese authorities failed to take any steps to trace Paul's family, who were in Portugal at the time and were only informed of his death after his parents traced him to a local hospital, where the body had lain for four weeks after being found on a beach in Portimao, although on several visits to the hospital his parents were told that no person of his description had been admitted; expresses its dismay that even though Paul had telphone numbers on his person that would have helped identify him, neither the police nor the hospital made any effort to trace his next of kin; condemns the extraordinary discourtesy of the Portuguese Ambassador and his staff towards the honourable Member for Leicester, West, when he sought to progress this matter on behalf of his constituents".
That is what matters. It is not what they do to Members of Parliament. We are servants of our constituents. It does not matter on which side of the House we sit, we are put in this place to look after our constituents. When we get in touch with an ambassador for a constituent whose son has died, it is not our amour propre; it is our attempt to get results for our constituents.
The motion continues.
"and demands that the Portuguese Government now take immediate action to investigate Paul Kenney's death, to inform the bereaved family of its causes and circumstances, and to apologise for the disgraceful way in which it has treated them and their awful tragedy."
I am very much obliged to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the help that it has provided. I have had letters from the Minister of State and from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who is being good enough to reply to the debate. I know, because of the letters—I shall not read them out—and my conversations with the
656
right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that they care about this matter and that they will do their best to help us. I know that they are as shocked as I am at the way in which this awful tragedy has been treated. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course what steps they will take to try to give the parents at least the knowledge of what happened to their son.
The suggestion that this matter is sub judice, which has been alleged in a letter to me and the Minister, is absolute rubbish. There is no reason whatever why the Portuguese authorities should not tell us what happened. I have here an unidentified document, which comes from Portugal, and
says:
"After consulting the Hospital registry on the arrival of the deceased persons and their property, it was verified that on 17/7/93 a corpse, of the male sex, with no identification",—
no identification?—
"had been brought in to the Emergencies' Department by the Voluntary Fire Brigade of Portimao."That was not true either. I shall come to that in a moment.
"A wallet containing several papers and money in the amount of 8 thousand escudos was found with the deceased."
How can they say that he was not indentifiable when his wallet was there?
"These were all registered in the Hospital's property registry book and later on collected by a person of English nationality who identified herself as the mother"—
as if there were some doubt about it; it is a disgusting document—
"In accordance with the information provided by the staff involved in this case—registration and delivery of the property—the various papers found in the wallet had nothing on them to allow identification of the body."
If that is not a patent, blatant, lie, I do not know what is. After all, the same document refers to a wallet containing his identification.
"On 19/7/93, the Hospital conveyed the situation to the Deputy State Attorney of the Judiciary Court of Portimao as is common practice in similar situations—arrival of corpses."
I shall come to that in a moment, because I do not believe that British people should go on holiday to Portugal if they treat people in this way.
"Regarding this matter, and at our request, we were later informed by this Court that the proceedings were under investigation, at the stage of inquiry and therefore, sub judice. We would like to point out that the transfer of the corpse to the Hospital, whose death occurred outside the Hospital, was due to the fact that the existing morgue, at our premises, is jointly used by the forensic and pathology services and by the District Hospital of Portimao, in accordance with an agreement with the Ministry of Justice"—
as if any one cares. I should not have thought that the fact that organisations shared a morgue prevented them from identifying the bodies in it.
At last I received a letter from the ambassador. It is a page and a half long and helps us not at all. I shall read it, because it speaks for itself. As the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) was good enough to point out, it is important that we should allow these people to speak for themselves—degrading for them as it must be. The letter reads as follows:
"Dear Mr. Janner,
Thank you for your letter of 9th November regarding the death of Mr. Paul Kenney. Following your previous letter, dated 22nd October, I have conveyed to my authorities that it would be very helpful to have some kind of preliminary or even incomplete information on the enquiry on Mr. Kenney if it would not be possible to have, in the short term, a complete report addressing in full Mrs. Carla Kenney's concerns on the very unfortunate events related with her son's death.
Although I would rather prefer to give you a comprehensive report, I am afraid that, pending the conclusion of the enquiry

657
conducted by the State Attorney in the Judicial Court of Portimão I will have no more than incomplete answers to Mr. Paul Kenney's family.
Besides the Court, this case is dealt with by other departments of the Portuguese Administration, mainly the Ministries of Health and Home Affairs.
The conclusions of the enquiry carried out by the Ministry for Home Affairs are not yet available."
I remind the House that the letter is dated 3 December and that the accident—if it was an accident—and the death occurred on 17 July, some six months before.
"I can inform you I have just received a report from the Health Minister's office concerning the events … I am sending herewith a tentative translation"—
whatever that may mean—
"of the above-mentioned report and a copy of the annexed, untranslated, document sent by the Health Ministry."
I have not read the untranslated document. My Spanish is excellent but my Portuguese, I am pleased to say, does not exist. The document that I read to the House is clearly that document.
The ambassador then refers to the seven questions originally asked by Mrs. Kenney about how the death happened, of which I now remind the House:
"Why was there no record of Paul ever entering the hospital? Was he alive at any time in the hospital? Why did the hospital not inform the police that they had Paul's body with his wallet containing seven Portimao phone numbers? As the police arrived on the beach after the ambulance 115 had taken Paul to the hospital, why did they not follow it? Why do the hospital insist Paul had no clothes on when he entered the hospital, when the witness found him on the beach fully clothed on 17 July 1993? Why did four weeks elapse without the hospital, the Special Police or the Maritime Police contracting me about my son's death? Why did the police interview the witness one week after finding Paul on the beach."
Those are the mother's perfectly reasonable questions. Here is the ambassador's answer:
"I think you will agree; that some of them"
—the questions—
"have already been answered, namely by the report from the Hospital."
I do not agree, none of them had been answered.
"There was no record of Mr. Paul Kenney ever entering the hospital because the corpse afterwards identified by Mrs. Kenney was registered as 'unidentified'".
She had asked the staff whether they had had anyone in of that description. Paul had the tattoo on his arm; he had the wallet with him; he had his identification on him.
The answer continues:
"the fact was forwarded to the local services of the State Attorney, as demanded by the practice in similar circumstances. The registry staff did not find elements which allowed identification of the body."
This man has not bothered to read the correspondence. He does not know anything. He has not taken the care and trouble to look.
"The unidentified person arrived at the hospital already dead".
Did he? Who said so? One of the reports that I have just read to the House said that he was treated at the hospital. That answers another of Mrs. Carla Kenney's concerns.
"As to the questions involving the members of Police forces, I am afraid the respective answers will not be obtained before the completion of the inquiry by the State Attorney."
Will we be alive to see that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I hope SO.
"As I have had the occasion to tell you before, I am well aware of the distress caused to Mrs. Carla Kenney, and I sincerely hope that her concerns will be fully answered."
Once again there is no word of kindness, sympathy or understanding.
658
"Your letter dated 29th November was received during the typing of the translation of the report … I deeply regret the impression you have about the way the Portuguese authorities are handling this case.
The Embassy will continue to pursue its utmost efforts to help your constituent and yourself in this unfortunate matter."
If those are its utmost efforts, what are the rest like? I have never before seen a letter like that.
I have prepared a batch of further questions, which I will place before the House. I invite the Government to ask the Portuguese ambassador and Portuguese Government to inquire into the issues raised by my questions, as I will.
There is no mention of the previous correspondence with me or the questions that I asked. I asked a great series—a fax in late September and letters on the 22 September, 29 November and 22 November. The ambassador asked for a complete report from Mrs. Carla Kenney for the first time. Why did he not ask for it before if they needed it? Why does he not ask Mrs. Kenney herself? She has been living in Portimao since Paul's death. She has only come to this country today to listen to the debate about her son. The police have never visited Mrs. Kenney to ask for a report.
The ambassador says that he sends a "tentative" translation. What is that? Mr. and Mrs. Kenney question much of what is contained in the translated hospital report. Why has it taken almost five months to get a report from the hospital? The excuse for there being no record of a body was that the corpse was unidentified. That is obviously unacceptable. Do hospitals in Portugal not keep records of unidentified bodies that arrive at the hospitals? Mrs. Kenney specifically asked whether any bodies had been brought in and was told that none had been. Why were the police not informed that there was an unidentified corpse at the hospital? Why is a police investigation being carried out now, five months later?
Why would the typing of the translations prevent the ambassador from writing to me for a week? Why did he not use the telephone? The ambassador calls this an unfortunate matter. That is the understatement of the century. As for the hospital report that he saw fit to send, the body was not brought to the hospital by a voluntary fire brigade vehicle; witnesses saw it being taken from the beach by a 115 Portuguese ambulance.
As for the allegation that there was no identification on the body, Portuguese bank numbers and local telephone numbers cannot amount to no identification. Why were the personal belongings kept separate from the body? Why did officials not connect the unidentified personal belongings with the unidentified body? Is it not true that the papers on the body would have enabled identification? Why did the police not go down the road to the bank and check the bank numbers or telephone the Portimao numbers?
If the situation was conveyed to the judiciary court of Portimao on 19 July, why did the police not investigate? Why do we have no result? Why do the parents still not know how their son died? The ambassador blames the confusion on the fact that the morgue is used jointly by the forensic and pathology departments. Why should that be a problem?
I have handled many difficult cases for my constituents in my time, but this is certainly the worst. It could be pure, blatant negligence on the part of the authorities in Portimao, in which case I would have expected the ambassador to have said, "I have gone into this. I am

659
terribly sorry, there has been a mistake." That is what decent people would do. They certainly would not try to justify the treatment that my constituents have been given.
I wish to pay tribute to the courage of the Kenney family. I saw Mr. Kenney before we went public, and I asked him again, "Are you sure that you want to raise this matter in the House of Commons and publicly? It opens up wounds and keeps them open. Would you not prefer—as many of my constituents do when hit by tragedy—to say that you have done your best, to close it and to try to live with the memory of your son without knowing what happened to him?" He said no for two reasons. First, he said that the family had to know what had happened to their lad. Secondly, they did not want the same thing to happen to anyone else's family or anyone else's son. I am proud to be of service to them. I think that they are great people and I wish that the circumstances were not such a tragedy.
I would not go to Portugal until this matter is cleared up. If that is the way the Portuguese treat people, the further we keep away from them the better. I would advise the Portuguese authorities not to spend millions of pounds on advertising their holidays, but to spend just a little time trying to clear up the tragedy that has struck a British citizen. Instead of sending anodyne letters—I do not know to whom they thought they were sending them if they thought that I would sit back and just take them—they should investigate properly. I suggest that British people should express their disgust at this awful treatment.
Although the case involves one person and one family, it has a symbolism about it. It is right that we should have the opportunity, as Back Benchers, to raise matters concerning even one citizen and one family, and I am so grateful for that opportunity.
I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to say what the Government of this country will do to try to get put right what the Government of an allegedly friendly country have deliberately, I think, failed to do. I hope that the Government will try to clear up some of the mystery, which makes the family believe that their son did not die a natural death.
1.30 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I wonder whether I may make a brief contribution. May I say, as a Conservative politician to a Labour politician, that today is the first time in my 15 years in the House that I have heard a constituency case put so well. The House can tell that I feel emotional having heard all the details.
The thing that struck me most was the lack of compassion, tenderness, understanding in any of the communiqués to the Kenney family. That is an absolute disgrace and I hope that somehow the Foreign Office can get to the bottom of it on behalf of the constituent of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I give the hon. and learned Gentleman full marks, because I do not not think that a constituency case could have been presented better.
1.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I think that we were all impressed by the
660
hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and the way in which he represented his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Kenney, and brought this important case to the attention of the House. I should like to outline the action taken by the British Government on behalf of the family since Paul Kenney's death. I will outline separately the action taken by the honorary consul in Portimao, in whose consular district the death occurred and the consul in Lisbon, who later became involved when matters were taken to a higher level.
Before I do that, I would, of course, like to express my sincere condolences to the Kenney family during what must still be a distressing and deeply traumatic time. Before I come to the history of events, I should add that I shall write to the Portuguese ambassador on Monday, as soon as Hansard is available, to give him a copy of the debate at the earliest possible opportunity.
On 16 August 1993, Mrs. Carla Kenney, the co-owner with her husband, Mr. John Raymond Kenney, of a bar in Portimao, contacted the British consulate in Portimao for the first time about her son's death. The honorary consul asked her to come into the consulate to speak to him about it immediately. She told him that her son's body had been in the hospital mortuary in Portimao for one month without anyone informing her.
Mrs. Kenney told the honorary consul in Portimao that her son had left home on 16 July to go to a local bar. When he did not return she made inquiries. She reported his disappearance to the local authorities on 23 And 26 July and again on 5 August. She gave a full description of her son and identifying marks. It was not until 13 August that she was telephoned by the local police and asked to go to the hospital in Portimao to identify her son's body, at the mortuary, which she did. Mrs. Kenney did not contact the consulate during this time.
From her inquiries, Mrs. Kenney found out that Paul Kenney left the bar at about 11.30 pm on 16 July. A local Portuguese lady told her that she had found the body on the beach at Praia da Rocha, called the maritime police from a local restaurant and that the body was taken to the mortuary.
At a meeting on 16 August, the honorary consul in Portimao advised the family to appoint a lawyer immediately to look into the matter. He gave Mr. and Mrs. Kenney a list of lawyers. Mrs. Kenney knew one of them and our honorary consul telephoned his office. In the lawyer's absence, he left a message, asking him to contact Mr. and Mrs. Kenney as soon as possible.
Mr. and Mrs. Kenney visited the consulate again on 20 August. They said that they had established that Portimao hospital had had their son's documents all along, but had not informed the police. His wallet had apparently contained a bank statement and other documents which could have helped to identify him.
As soon as our honorary consul in Portimao heard from Mrs. Kenney what had happened, he spoke to the port captain in Portimao on 20 August. He followed up that conversation with an official written request to the naval authorities and the local court, asking for a report of events. The port captain replied formally on 25 August, saying that he had been informed of the accident on 17 July, but, as his authorities had been unable to identify the body, they had passed the matter to the local court to deal with. The court was in recess at the time so the consul wrote again to them,

661
asking for a report. At the request of the consul in Lisbon, the honorary consul wrote formally to the court on 16 September to request the reports.
The honorary consul in Portimao also contacted the local public prosecutor informally to try to find out what had happened. The public prosecutor said that he had received an official request for information from the Ministry of Justice acting on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The case was sub judice and he could not release the reports. The deputy public prosecutor confirmed that in a letter on 29 September. He was told that the Ministry of Health had also requested a report from the local hospital.
Our honorary consul in Portimao wrote to the court again on 4 October and was told on 8 October that the matter was still sub judice. Our consulate in Lisbon was similary told that, for the same reason, it could not have copies of the reports. The honorary consul called the deputy public prosecutor again on 3 December and was told the same thing. The consul was told that the local police were due to give the public prosecutor's office a report on the inquest soon. The report would also indicate a response from the local health authorities.
I am satisfied that the honorary consul in Portimao did everything that could reasonably be expected of him as soon as Mrs. Kenney alerted him to the problem. He was in touch throughout with Her Majesty's consul in Lisbon, to whom he is answerable. Our consulate in Lisbon in turn informed and consulted the consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The action taken by the consul in Lisbon was also appropriate and timely; that is, he reinforced the advice that the family consult a lawyer and, now being aware of the problem of delay in notification, took that up with the Portuguese authorities.
I shall outline what the consul did. He wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Kenney at their address in Portugal on 31 August to explain what action the consul in Portimao had taken on their behalf. He again suggested that they take the matter up through a lawyer to try to obtain further information from the court and about gaining access to some money left in a bank by Paul Kenney. The consul also told them how they could lodge an official complaint with the Portugese Ministry of Health.
On 14 September, in the absence of any satisfactory response to the inquiries made by our consul in Portimao, the British Embassy sent an official note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking why the consulate had not been informed of Paul Kenney's death in spite of Portugal's obligations under the Vienna convention on consular relations. That convention requires the host country to notify all deaths of foreigners without delay to the consul of the country concerned if the information is available to it. The embassy asked why the family had not been informed until a month after Paul's death. It asked for a report into the action taken by the Portuguese authorities after Paul Kenney's body was found.
In the absence of a reply to the embassy's note, our consul in Lisbon arranged a meeting with the acting head of consular matters in the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 5 November. She—the official—undertook to ensure that the consul was given the information we sought as soon as possible by the Portuguese Ministry of Justice and Procurator General.
On 6 December, the ambassador in Lisbon spoke in similar terms to the senior responsible official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our consul again raised the
662
matter with the acting head of the Foreign Ministry's consular department. Both undertook to ensure that the embassy received a reply to the note of 14 September as soon as possible. The following day, however, the Ministry called the consulate to say that it had received a letter from the Attorney-General's office saying that it could not provide the police and autopsy reports at that stage.
I have described in some detail the action taken so far by the consuls in Portimão and Lisbon to try to establish why Mr. and Mrs. Kenney were not told straight away of their son's death when means of identification were available. We in the Foreign Office also need to know why our consul was not similarly informed in accordance with the Vienna convention.
It will be clear to the House from my account and from that of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West that no satisfactory explanation for these matters has so far been given. I fully appreciate and share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the case. He has tried to obtain answers from the Portuguese authorities, but has been unable to do so.
All of us sympathise with the anger of Mr. and Mrs. Kenney. It is most distressing for the family not to know what happened. The time that it is taking to conclude the inquiry in Portugal is beyond our control. Although we cannot influence the legal process, we will press the Portuguese to reach a conclusion as soon as possible so that the family will know what happened.
However, it is extremely unsatisfactory that the Portuguese authorities have not answered the two main points that we have made about the delay in informing the next of kin for nearly a month and not telling our consul of the death of a British national. I am aware that Paul Kenney's family believes that there has been a cover up. I can well understand their concern, but I cannot express my final opinion on the conduct of the case at present. However, I can assure Paul Kenney's family that, beyond what I have said, we have been given no further information as to why it took the hospital nearly a month to contact the next of kin.
I can say two further things. First, I assure the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West—and he will take this point to his constituents—that we will continue to press for an explanation of why they were not told of their son's death. Secondly, we will give the record of this debate to the Portuguese authorities so that they will appreciate not just the anger, but the anguish of Paul Kenney's parents and the need for a swift answer after so much unreasonable delay.
Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for what he has said and for giving way. Is it not a matter of grave concern that now that so much time has passed, no one will ever know what has happened, because the evidence will have become stale?
Will the Minister ask his two questions and also follow up the questions that I asked the ambassador and which I set out in my speech and will provide to him? In that way, we will try to obtain much more detailed replies and not the kind of response, which I expect will eventually be sent, of, "So sorry we did not let you or them know because something went wrong." If it is possible, we want to find out, even at this stage, what happened to this young man.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the letter that I have said that I will write to the Portuguese authorities, I will draw

663
attention to the particular questions that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. We shall, of course, keep the hon. and learned Gentleman and his constituents fully informed as we continue to press the Portuguese authorities for an explanation. They are fully aware of the
664
hon. and learned Gentleman's efforts so far to bring this matter to the attention of the public. I hope that they will take note of all the publicity caused this week and acknowledge that cases like this have a negative impact on Portugal's image in the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock

EDUCATION

  Parental Choice, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to ensure that parents living within the London borough of Wandsworth will continue to have the right to choose the school of their choice for their children to attend; and what discussions he has had with the borough about this matter;

  (2) what discussions he is having with the London Borough of Wandsworth about selective entry schools in the borough; what plans he has to ensure that such schools will still take children of mixed ability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under section 8 of the Education Act 1944, local education authorities have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient schools to provide education for all pupils in their area taking account of their age, ability and aptitude. This will continue to be the case under the Education Act 1993 until the sole responsibility for ensuring a sufficiency of schools in the primary or secondary phase, as the case may be, passes to the Funding Agency for Schools under the provisions of section 12 of that Act.

  My right hon. Friend will continue to consider on their merits any proposals by Wandsworth council to implement its policy of diversity and choice in the borough's schools.

  Education Authorities (Capital Assets)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the value of capital assets held by local education authorities; and which are held for the purposes of individual schools and which are occupied for other purposes.

  Mr. Forth
  The replacement capital value of local education authority school buildings in England is estimated to be £36·8 billion million. This includes the cost of furniture and equipment and building design fees. Additionally the land value of school sites is estimated to be £3·8 billion. Information is not held centrally on the extent to which schools are occupied for other purposes.

  Goods and Services (VAT)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 571, if he will list the supply of goods and services incidental to the supply of education by sixth form colleges and further education colleges which are exempt from value added tax.

  Mr. Boswell
  Item 4 of group 6, schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983, as amended, specifies that the supply of any goods or services incidental to the provision of any education or training provided by a college in the FEFC 372
  sector is exempt from VAT. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise VAT leaflet 701/30/87, which is available in the Library, gives examples of the type of incidental goods and services covered by this exemption. They include educational materials such as pens, ink and exercise books, most catering supplies and accommodation.

  Primary Schools (Class Sizes)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the number of primary school children in(a) January 1992 and (b) January 1993, being taught: in classes of more than 30; and what was the percentage change.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1992 there were 1,075,000 pupils in classes of more than 30 in maintained primary schools in England compared with 1,142,000—provisional—in January 1993, a rise of 6 per cent.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the proportion of three-year-olds in local authority nursery education classes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Latest figures show that in England 39 per cent. of children aged three at the beginning of the 1992–93 school year were being taught in maintained—local education authority and grant-maintained—nursery schools and nursery classes in January 1993 when the annual pupil count is conducted.

  Capital Credit Approval
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what amount has been requested by way of capital credit approval for each local education authority in 1994–95.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is in the table. The figures are taken from the capital plans for 1994–95 submitted by each local education authority to the Department.

  LEA

  Total capital bid 1994–95(£000)

  Barking

  5,409

  Barnet

  11,514

  Bexley

  6,881

  Brent

  4,675

  Bromley

  9,937

  Croydon

  7,613

  Ealing

  40,012

  Enfield

  6,656

  Haringey

  15,688

  Harrow

  11,156

  Havering

  8,665

  Hillingdon

  9,349

  Hounslow

  11,959

  Kingston

  1,747

  Merton

  10,050

  Newham

  11,379

  Redbridge

  3,733

  Richmond

  4,490

  Sutton

  5,049

  Waltham

  10,085

  City

  0

  Camden

  1,544

  Westminster

  475

  373

  LEA

  Total capital bid 1994–95(£000)

  Greenwich

  8,101

  Hackney

  8,438

  Hammersmith

  2,775

  Islington

  9,135

  Kensington

  2,919

  Lambeth

  9,703

  Lewisham

  23,049

  Southwark

  6,263

  Wandsworth

  11,856

  Tower Hamlets

  25,560

  Birmingham

  51,514

  Coventry

  4,087

  Dudley

  6,090

  Sandwell

  9,685

  Solihull

  5,325

  Walsall

  6,218

  Wolverhampton

  11,465

  Knowsley

  13,496

  Liverpool

  15,662

  St. Helens

  5,544

  Sefton

  3,445

  Wirral

  6,098

  Bolton

  4,180

  Bury

  3,536

  Manchester

  49,217

  Oldham

  7,815

  Rochdale

  14,464

  Salford

  13,104

  Stockport

  2,115

  Tameside

  11,031

  Trafford

  6,292

  Wigan

  5,055

  Barnsley

  4,198

  Doncaster

  6,178

  Rotherham

  2,792

  Sheffield

  36,617

  Bradford

  37,329

  Calderdale

  5,275

  Kirklees

  9,499

  Leeds

  26,671

  Wakefield

  27,991

  Gateshead

  5,488

  Newcastle

  29,483

  North Tyneside

  11,510

  South Tyneside

  7,000

  Sunderland

  6,373

  Isles of Scilly

  94

  Avon

  12,314

  Bedfordshire

  5,888

  Berkshire

  13,267

  Buckinghamshire

  14,981

  Cambridgeshire

  25,235

  Cheshire

  21,141

  Cleveland

  11,683

  Cornwall

  16,030

  Cumbria

  25,037

  Derybshire

  36,317

  Devon

  25,526

  Dorset

  22,612

  Durham

  53,165

  East Sussex

  38,458

  Essex

  58,195

  Gloucestershire

  32,281

  Hampshire

  50,728

  Hereford and Worcester

  14,432

  Hertfordshire

  9,806

  Humberside

  19,253

  Isle of Wight

  10,369

  374

  LEA

  Total capital bid 1994–95(£000)

  Kent

  40,464

  Lancashire

  40,633

  Leicestershire

  11,838

  Lincoln

  17,278

  Norfolk

  12,791

  North Yorkshire

  17,530

  Northamptonshire

  14,097

  Northumberland

  5,996

  Nottinghamshire

  17,045

  Oxfordshire

  21,641

  Shropshire

  8,448

  Somerset

  10,090

  Staffordshire

  16,119

  Suffolk

  19,715

  Surrey

  25,970

  Warwickshire

  5,384

  West Sussex

  16,087

  Wiltshire

  13,051

  Total

  1,608,696

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further progress has been made in appointing more women as members of public bodies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Women have been appointed to some 40 per cent. of all new appointments made in the last 12 months. This is a further welcome improvement and demonstrates our continuing efforts to ensure that women can play their proper part in our public life. The percentage of public appointments held by women is now 28 per cent. which is a further increase of 2 per cent. since September 1992 on top of the 3 per cent. increase in the previous year. Full details will be published in due course in the 1993 edition of "Public Bodies".

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public appointments are currently held by members of the ethnic minorities; and what plans the Government have to increase this number.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following the introduction last year of ethnic monitoring of public appointees, the statistics collected showed that at 1 September 1992, 2 per cent. of all appointments to public bodies were held by members of the ethnic minorities. The latest figures, full details of which will be published shortly in "Public Bodies", show that this has now increased to 2·3 per cent.

  A few departments have already set their own goals for further increases but it is not practical for all departments to set such a goal. The Government aim progressively to increase the number of public appointments of members of ethnic minorities in order more closely to reflect their contribution to national life. Currently nearly 5 per cent. of the economically active population are members of the ethnic minorities.

TRANSPORT

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the Ministers in his Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia, (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Norris
  Since the election in April 1992, there has only been one visit by a Department of Transport Minister to the four countries named. This was by me to Singapore in October 1993. No party political activities were included in this visit. Owing to changes of Ministers and personnel, it would incur disproportionate cost to retrieve the information on visits before the last election.

  Drink Driving
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum legal limit on blood alcohol levels for drivers in each EC country.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested, in milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, is as follows:

  milligrammes

  The Netherlands

  50

  Portugal

  50

  Belgium

  80

  Denmark

  80

  France

  80

  Germany

  1280

  Greece

  380

  Italy

  80

  Luxembourg

  80

  Spain

  80

  United Kingdom

  80

  Ireland

  100

  1 Germany has not adopted a common limit after unification.

  2 (0 in the former Democratic Republic).

  3 For the general drink/drive offence but the power exists to charge motorists at 50 mg/ml if an accident has taken place.

  Bicycle Helmets
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make the wearing of bicycle helmets compulsory.

  Mr. Key
  None. Bicycle helmets have been proven to reduce significantly both the number and the severity of head injuries. We therefore encourage cyclists, particularly children, to wear them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Welfare Adaptations
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will give the date of receipt of an application for welfare adaptations at 17 O'Reilly park, Killeen, Newry, and the dates when the application was referred to the occupational therapist; when an occupational therapist report was received; when an architect was appointed; and when work is due to be completed;
  376
  (2) if he will give details of the reasons for delays in processing the application for welfare adaptations for 17 O'Reilly park, Killeen, Newry.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I understand from the chief executive that a verbal application was received in early January 1993 and referred to the occupational therapist on 7 January 1993 whose report was received on 29 January 1993.

  A Housing Executive architect was appointed to carry out a feasibility study on 2 February 1993 and this was completed in May 1993. The scheme was passed to a consultant architect in June 1993 for detailed plans to be drawn up. These plans required amendments to incorporate comprehensive improvements to the dwelling which were brought forward to minimise disruption to the tenants.

  The detailed plans were completed on 22 November 1993 and were approved by the Housing Executive on 2 December 1993. The work is due to start in January 1994 and be completed by April 1994. The work should commence within the target timescale recently set by the Executive for carrying out major adaptations which involve an extension to a disabled person's home.

  Daisy Hill Hospital
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations have been consulted over the membership of the proposed Daisy Hill hospital trust; and which organisations have been invited to nominate members to the trust.

  Mr. Ancram
  Apart from the period of public consultation on the application for trust status, my noble colleague, Lord Arran, advises me that he has not consulted on the membership of the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust, of which Daisy Hill hospital is a part.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the role of the lay helper in the creation of the Daisy Hill hospital trust.

  Mr. Ancram
  The position of lay helpers in any trust is formal, voluntary and unpaid. Their role is to assist in drawing up the formal application, giving potential trusts access to the types of skills and experience which non-executive members are expected to bring to the trust board, and to identify potential candidates for appointment as non-executive directors on the board of the trust.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations have taken place with the district councils in the Southern region, with members of the Southern health and social services board, or with hon. Members with constituencies covering parts of the Southern region, regarding the membership of the Daisy Hill hospital trust.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what appointments have been made to the board of the shadow Daisy Hill hospital trust.

  Mr. Ancram
  Mr. John McEvoy, former lay helper, has been appointed chairman of the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust for a period of four years from 23
  377
  November 1993. My noble colleague, Lord Arran, hopes to be able shortly to announce the names of the non-executive directors for the new trust.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he or his colleagues had with the Southern health and social services board regarding the membership of the board of the proposed Daisy Hill hospital trust.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Spina Bifida
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the incidence of spina bifida among newborn infants in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1992 the incidence was 0·78 per 1,000 total registered births.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of spina bifida among newborn babies;

  (2) what information he has concerning the use of vitamin supplementation for women in their main child-bearing years as a means of reducing cases of spina bifida; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  An expert advisory group report on folic acid and the prevention of neural tube defects, published in December 1992, confirmed evidence that women who increase their intake of folic acid when planning a pregnancy can significantly reduce the risk of having a baby with neural tube defect such as spina bifida. The report was immediately issued to all doctors, senior nurses, midwives and health visitors with a request that all women planning a pregnancy be advised to increase their consumption of folic acid. Health education material has been revised to incorporate this advice and a new public campaign using leaflets and posters was launched last month.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training, Birmingham
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the training providers providing training for work programmes funded by Birmingham training and enterprise council.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand that the hon. Member is to meet the chief executive of the Birmingham training and enterprise council on 13 December. The TEC has agreed to supply him then with the list which he seeks.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he takes to monitor the financial viability of training and enterprise councils; and what contingency plans he has in the event that a training and enterprise council becomes unable to meet its contractual obligations.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils are contractually required to provide the Department with regular financial information. This information is carefully 378
  analysed by qualified staff to assess the continuing financial viability of individual TECs. The Department is in a position to make suitable alternative arrangements if a TEC ceased to be financially viable.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people became unemployed in England each month since January 1991; and how many were re-employed within six months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is only available for people whose claims are processed by computer—99 per cent. of the total. It can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Of those becoming claimant unemployed, about two thirds leave within six months. The majority leave to go into employment.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the unemployment figures for the Tooting constituency in each of the last 10 years as of 30 November of each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the table. The figure for November 1993 will be published on 16 December.

  Claimant unemployment, on the unadjusted basis, for each November in the Tooting constituency

  Year

  Total

  1983

  5,336

  1984

  5,630

  1985

  5,687

  1986

  5,657

  1987

  4,496

  1988

  3,534

  1989

  2,814

  1990

  3,367

  1991

  5,657

  1992

  6,791

  Suspension of Benefit
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he applies in exercising his discretionary power to suspend benefit under regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments Regulations); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Lidington, dated 10 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations.
  Under Section 37(1)(c) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations the Secretary of State may direct that payment of benefit due as a result of a decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (SSAT) may be suspended if the adjudication officer considers that a further appeal to a Commissioner may be appropriate.
  The power to suspend benefit is discretionary and is exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State by my officers. If, following a decision of an SSAT, the adjudication officer wishes to appeal to the Commissioner, my local office is requested not to implement the decision pending a further appeal.

  379
  An appeal to a Commissioner can only be made on a point of law. The adjudication officer must therefore consider that the decision of the SSAT is wrong in law before making an application for leave to appeal. The most common errors of law are; the misinterpretation of provisions of the Act or regulations; no facts are found, or no reasons are given for the decision; irrelevant considerations have been taken into account; relevant evidence has been ignored; the explanation of the decision discloses faulty reasoning.
  Although my officers, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, are not bound to comply with the adjudication officer's request to suspend the payment of benefit, my people in my local offices are not specifically trained to interpret Social Security law. They will, therefore, rely on the expertise of the adjudication officer where it is considered that an SSAT may have made an error in law. In practice, this means that benefit is always suspended in these cases unless there are good reasons, specific to the case, for not doing so.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the funding for each training and enterprise council in 1993–94, quantifying how much is to be spent on training for work, youth training, local initiative funds, administration and other projects.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on 3 December 1993,Official Report, column 821. This lists the funding for each training and enterprise council, including training for work, youth training, local initiative fund, administration—management fee—and other projects.

  Youth Training
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had regarding the levels of allowance paid to those on youth training schemes; what plans there are to alter the allowance in any way; what prospects there are to increase the allowance or alter the payment structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have had a number of representations regarding the levels of the youth training —YT—allowance. There are no plans to increase minimum YT allowances. Minimum YT allowances are set at levels which reflect the fact that trainees are involved in the learning process and I believe current levels are sufficient to meet the normal requirements of trainees living in the parental home.

  Trainees who are employed are paid a wage by their employers. Employers benefit from considerable Government investment in the training of young people and are therefore encouraged to pay trainees more than the specified minimum rates of allowance wherever possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe Delegation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 1994 ordinary session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1994 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 24 January 1994. The delegation 380
  from the United Kingdom for the session will consist of 19 members of the Conservative party, 15 members of the Labour party and two members from the minority parties.

  The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned, in accordance with the resolution of this House on 22 May 1992 at column 682 and of the House of Lords on 18 June 1992 at columns 290-92.

  The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the Assembly of the Western European Union, which next meets in Paris in June 1994.

  Representatives from the Government benches will be:

  My noble Friend, the Lord Finsberg—who will continue to act as leader of both delegations.

  My hon. Friends the Members for:

  Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)

  Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson)

  Poole (Mr. J. Ward)

  Ashford (Sir K. Speed)

  Medway (Dame P. Fenner)

  Lewis (Mr. Rathbone)

  Bournemouth, East (Mr. D. Atkinson)

  Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt)

  Lord Newell

  Representatives from the Labour party will be:

  The hon. Members for:

  Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)

  Tooting (Mr. Cox)

  Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson)

  Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)

  Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)

  Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland)

  Lord Kirkhill

  The representative from the minority parties will be:

  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates.

  From the Government Benches:

  The hon. Members for:

  Reading, West (Sir T. Durant)

  Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell)

  Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden)

  Wellingborough (Mr. Fry)

  Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)

  Bridlington (Mr. Townend)

  Newark (Mr. Alexander)

  Baroness Hooper

  Earl of Dundee

  From the Labour party:

  The hon. Members for:

  Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie)

  Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)

  Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)

  Easington (Mr. Cummings)

  Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe)

  Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis)

  Baroness Lockwood

  From the minority parties:

  The Lord Mackie of Benshie

ENVIRONMENT

  Programme Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table showing for each standard region, with Greater London shown as a separate region, the total expenditure in 1992–93, and the budgeted expenditure in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, in respect of(a) estates action, (b) housing action trusts, (c) city

  381
  challenge/urban programme, (d) urban regeneration agency/city grant/derelict land grant, (e) urban development corporations, (f) inner-city task forces and (g) city action teams.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: The total public expenditure under these programmes for

  Total public expenditure for 1992–93 and Provision for 1993–94

  Estate Action

  Housing Action Trusts

  City Challenge2 Urban Programme

  Region

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 forecast

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 forecast

  1992–93 outturn3

  1993–94 forecast

  North West

  59·4

  60·6

  —

  —

  49·9

  57·3

  Northern

  24·8

  28·6

  —

  —

  55·0

  54·2

  Eastern

  5·1

  5·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  2·1

  4·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  11·6

  12·3

  —

  —

  2·0

  2·0

  London

  93·1

  89·8

  11·8

  —

  60·7

  85·6

  East Midlands

  26·6

  27·4

  —

  —

  16·5

  30·0

  Merseyside

  37·8

  39·2

  0·2

  —

  39·7

  43·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  42·8

  41·3

  14·6

  —

  39·7

  48·5

  West Midlands

  44·7

  46·3

  —

  —

  50·1

  57·3

  TOTAL

  348·0

  356·0

  26·6

  78·01

  313·6

  378·0

  1 1993–94 provision for distribution amongst Liverpool, Hull, Waltham Forest, Birmingham and Tower Hamlets HATs.

  2 Includes Housing Corporations support towards City Challenge expenditure.

  3 City Challenge expenditure provisional. Final figures will not be available until after receipt of authorities' 1992–93 final audited claims.

  Total public expenditure for 1992–93 and provision for 1993–94

  DLG; and City Grant to 10 November 1993

  Urban Development3Corporations

  Task Forces

  Region

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–941forecast

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 forecast

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 forecast

  North West

  35·7

  27·8

  80·8

  58·6

  2·5

  1·1

  Northern

  13·0

  16·5

  84·3

  75·5

  2·0

  1·8

  Eastern

  0·2

  1·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  0·6

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  4·1

  4·3

  22·9

  16·3

  1·0

  0·7

  London

  4·0

  3·9

  4240·9

  4132·4

  6·7

  5·0

  East Midlands

  15·9

  15·1

  —

  —

  2·9

  2·2

  Merseyside

  16·9

  13·4

  —

  —

  2·5

  2·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  36·5

  28·9

  21·8

  16·0

  3·6

  2·3

  West Midlands

  32·5

  27·4

  65·1

  60·7

  3·1

  2·6

  Total

  159·4

  2139·4

  515·8

  339·5

  24·3

  17·8

  1 Excludes English Estates; resources include DLG receipts.

  2 City Grant regional breakdown to 10 November only. Total 1993–94 provision for DLG (including receipts)/City Grant/English Partnerships (excluding English Estates) is £172 million.

  3 Excludes receipts from own activities and from the ERDF.

  4 Includes provision for Docklands Light Railway.

  Total public expenditure for 1992–93 and provision for 1993–94

  City action teams

  Region

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 forecast

  North West

  0·5

  —

  Northern

  1·1

  —

  Eastern

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  South West

  —

  —

  London

  0·9

  —

  East Midlands

  0·5

  —

  Merseyside

  0·6

  —

  York/Humberside

  0·5

  —

  West Midlands

  0·5

  —

  Total

  4·6

  11·2

  1 Breakdown of 1993–94 provision not yet available

  382
  1992–93 and the forecast for 1993–94 are shown, by region, in the following tables. For 1994–95 onwards, these programmes will transfer to the single regeneration budget, which will be administered by the integrated regional offices. A regional breakdown for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is not currently available.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the total amount spent by his Department under the derelict land grant in 1992–93 in(a) the Northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (2) what was the total amount spent by his Department under the city challenge scheme in 1992–93 in (a) the Northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (3) what was the total budget allocated by his Department to the Urban Regeneration Agency in 1992–93 for expenditure in (a) the Northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (4) what was the total amount spent by his Department under the city grant scheme in 1992–93 in (a) the Northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (5) what was the total amount spent by his Department under the inner city task forces scheme in 1992–93 in (a) the Northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole;
  383
  (6) what was the total budget in 1992–93 allocated by his Department to the city action teams in (a) Tyne and Wear and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) today. This contained programme information for each region in England. City challenge expenditure in England as a whole was £82·1 million in 1992–93 and in the northern region £14·99 million. Tyne and Wear city action team spent £494,000 in 1992–93 and Cleveland city action team spent £645,000.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland are responsible for programmes operating in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  £ millions

  Estate action

  Urban programme

  City Challenge

  Derelict land grant2

  Urban Development Corporations3

  Inner city task forces3

  1979–80

  —

  —

  —

  0·145

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  —

  —

  0·013

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  0·141

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  0·102

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  0·048

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  0·013

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  0·133

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  0·102

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  1·790

  —

  0·561

  —

  4—

  1988–89

  —

  1·913

  —

  0·237

  —

  4—

  1989–90

  —

  2·323

  —

  0·501

  —

  1·619

  1990–91

  —

  2·000

  —

  1·372

  —

  1·192

  1991–92

  2·160

  2·334

  —

  0·702

  —

  0·189

  1992–93

  2·920

  2·210

  1—

  1·829

  —

  —

  1993–94

  1·867

  1·288

  1—

  1·671

  —

  —

  1 Dearne Valley Partnership: Expenditure shared between Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Metropolitan Councils.

  2 Local authority derelict land grant only.

  3 Not paid direct to local authorities.

  4 Figures for these years not readily available.

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  £ millions

  Estate action

  Urban programme

  City Challenge1

  Derelict land grant2

  Urban Development Corporations3

  Inner city task forces3

  1979–80

  —

  —

  —

  0·017

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  —

  —

  0·022

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  0·052

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  0·141

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  0·194

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  0·176

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  0·119

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  0·333

  —

  —

  1987–88

  0·019

  1·370

  —

  0·525

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1·662

  1·420

  —

  0·484

  —

  —

  1989–90

  3·849

  2·101

  —

  2·087

  —

  —

  1990–91

  1·752

  1·859

  —

  1·685

  —

  —

  1991–92

  2·479

  2·143

  —

  0·878

  —

  —

  1992–93

  4·230

  2·164

  7·500

  1·546

  —

  —

  1993–94

  4·599

  1·342

  15·000

  1·221

  —

  —

  1 Includes £7·5 million a year from 1992–93 for Deame Valley Partnership: expenditure shared between Barnsley Doncaster and Rotherham Metropolitan Councils.

  2 Local Authority DLG only.

  3 Not paid direct to local authorities.

  384
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the public expenditure provision for each of the four metropolitan borough councils in South Yorkshire for(a) estate action, (b) urban programme, (c) city challenge, (d) direct land grant, (e) city action teams, (f) the development corporation, (g) inner city task forces and (h) housing action trusts for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total amount of public expenditure under these programmes in these local authority areas is set out below. None of these areas receives specific city action team or housing action trust funding.
  385

  Rotherham metropolitan borough council

  £million

  Estate action

  Urban programme

  City challenge

  Derelict land grant2

  Urban development corporation3

  Inner city task forces3

  1979–80

  —

  —

  —

  0·372

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  —

  —

  0·549

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  0·050

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  0·067

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  0·069

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  0·027

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  0·059

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  0·252

  —

  —

  1987–88

  0·252

  1·840

  —

  0·493

  —

  —

  1988–89

  0§280

  1·768

  —

  1·747

  —

  —

  1989–90

  0·436

  2·177

  —

  2·638

  —

  —

  1990–91

  0·005

  2·000

  —

  3·876

  —

  —

  1991–92

  0·309

  2·208

  —

  4·586

  —

  —

  1992–93

  0·682

  2·224

  —

  10·486

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  1·487

  1—

  5·913

  —

  —

  1 Dearne Valley Partnership: expenditure shared between Bamsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Metropolitan Councils.

  2 Local Authority DLG only.

  3 Not paid direct to local authorities.

  Sheffield City Council

  £ millions

  Estate action

  Urban programme

  City challenge

  Derelict land grant1

  Urban development corporations2

  Inner city task forces3

  1979–80

  —

  2·650

  —

  0·031

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  3·440

  —

  0·031

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  3·490

  —

  0·022

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  4·860

  —

  0·010

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  4·500

  —

  0·010

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  4·200

  ·

  0·071

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  4·510

  —

  0·592

  —

  —

  1986–87

  0·277

  5·460

  —

  0·091

  —

  —

  1987–88

  1·786

  5·630

  —

  0·514

  —

  —

  1988–89

  7·262

  5·519

  —

  1·078

  7·900

  —

  1989–90

  8·296

  5·739

  —

  0·053

  9·500

  —

  1990–91

  7·880

  6·614

  —

  0·134

  19·000

  —

  1991–92

  7·255

  10·907

  —

  0·636

  13·300

  —

  1992–93

  6·968

  5·566

  —

  0·265

  13·200

  —

  1993–94

  6·180

  3·940

  —

  1·060

  12·000

  —

  1 Local authority DLG only.

  2 Not paid direct to local authorities.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the latest estimate available to his Department of the number of passengers expected to use the Cutty Sark station on the Docklands light railway extension;

  (2) if he will itemise and cost each of the savings made to reduce the cost of the Jubilee line extension to Greenwich and Lewisham.

  Mr. Baldry
  The London Docklands development corporation, the owners of the railway, have made projections of potential passenger traffic at stations along the new extension. Annual projected passenger movements for a station at Cutty Sark rise from 1·4 million when it opens in 1997–98 to 2·5 million in 2001. Forecasts indicate that if Cutty Sark were not to be provided, the majority of potential passengers would use the new Docklands light railway station at Greenwich instead. The Government 386
  have asked the London Docklands development corporation and the Docklands light railway to consult local interests on the deletion of these stations before a final decision is made.

  Provision of a new station at Cutty Sark would cost an estimated £13 million; at Island Gardens an estimated £4 million. The original estimate of costs also included £10 million for initial rolling stock which are now to be provided by Docklands light railway as operators of the extension. Other potential cost reductions may result from a fall in the land acquisition costs and from minor changes in the project's specifications.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria of viability he has applied to the future of the Island Gardens and Cutty Sark stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department, together with the owners of the railway, the London Docklands development corporation, and Docklands Light Railway Limited itself, has made an assessment of the financial viability of the extension to Lewisham in the light of independent merchant banking advice. The conclusion was that the
  387
  forecast incremental revenue from passengers on the extension could not finance the full project as previously costed—at £140 million. A review of the capital and operating costs of the project has indicated provisionally that the new stations proposed for Island Gardens and Cutty Sark will need to be deleted in order to make the project as a whole viable. These stations would be situated underground at each end of the new tunnel taking the railway under the Thames and would involve much higher costs of construction and operation than the ground level stations along the line. The forecast revenue from both stations would cover only the estimated running costs of those stations and would not be sufficient to contribute towards the capital costs of their construction.

  The Government have asked the London Docklands development corporation and Docklands Light Railway Limited to consult local interests including businesses before a final decision is made on whether to delete the stations.

  The Government have consistently supported this project on the condition that no Government grant or subsidy will be made available. That remains the position. Nevertheless, approval has been given for the project to proceed as a joint venture between the private and public sectors, with capital contributions being made by Lewisham council, South Thames training and enterprise council and Deptford city challenge.

  Integrated Sub-Office (Plymouth)
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an integrated departmental sub-office in Plymouth to serve Devon and Cornwall as part of his programme of integrated regional offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We will consider how best the new office in the south west can deliver its services across the whole region in consultation with the senior regional director following his or her appointment.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses were received to the consultation paper of March proposing amendments to the scope of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and when he proposes to consult on draft amending regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  Two hundred and fifty responses were received to the consultation paper. These have now been considered and I am most grateful to those who sent in their views.

  I have today issued a second consultation paper which contains a statistical summary of these responses and invites comments on draft regulations to amend the prescribed processes and substances regulations.

  I am pleased to say that a substantial proportion of the amendments should have the effect of lightening the burden on business. The regulations will continue to ensure that processes with the greatest pollution potential still come under the stringent controls introduced by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. But we have identified cases where businesses had to meet more onerous requirements than were necessary, and opportunities for cutting red tape, for example by reducing the number of authorisations needed by certain processes.
  388
  A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

WALES

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many badgers were shot or gassed in each county in each of the last three years; and how many of these were subsequently shown to have tuberculosis.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of badgers killed, following trapping during state veterinary service badger removal operations, in Wales since 1 January 1991 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of badgers killed

  Number positive

  1991

  22

  0

  1992

  —

  —

  11993

  10

  0

  1 Up to 6 December 1993.

  The figures relate to the county of Dyfed. No badgers have been killed by the state veterinary service in any other county in Wales in the last three years. The legal gassing of badgers ceased on 26 June 1982.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State For Wales if he will make a statement on the discrepancies of his departmental approporiation accounts 1992–93, Paper 11-xi, identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report of 2 December.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Comptroller and Auditor General—C and AG—reported and qualified his audit opinion on three of the Welsh Office's 1992–93 appropriation accounts within class XVI. On vote 4, he found that"erroneous payments to Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) continue to exist at significant levels following the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Employment"

  on 1 April 1992; an understatement, as a result mainly of the incorrect assessment of benefit entitlements, of certain payments made through the Employment Service Agency—ESA. He notes in paragraphs 16-18 and 26-27 the efforts which my Department, TECs and the ESA have devoted to putting these matters right. I recently met the chairmen of all the TECs in Wales, to stress my determination that fully effective systems should be maintained. They agree with me.

  On vote 5, the C and AG reported on the progress made in auditing the outstanding claims, brought to Parliament's attention when he qualified his opinion on the 1991–92 accounts, for payments made to highway authorities over the period from 1974 to 1990, and on clearance of claims relating to 1990–91. He has confirmed that the systems now in place have allowed the Welsh Office to record satisfactorily advances made since April 1990. Local authorities too should ensure they accurately record these sums and their use.

  On vote 11, an error in the method of calculating sums due to authorities in respect of community charge grant let to four overpayments in March 1993; the sums were all recovered by 30 September.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is necessary for appointment to a non-departmental public body in Wales that a candidate has been included in the register held by the Welsh Office for public appointments.

  Mr. Redwood
  No, although many names are drawn from the departmental register. Candidates for public appointments may also be nominated by organisations, Members of Parliament and the Cabinet Office public appointments unit. All candidates are considered on their merits irrespective of the source of nomination.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has reached a decision on the level of resources to be devoted to regional selective assistance, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales in 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  A demand for regional aid, from both Welsh companies and inward investors is still high and I am increasing the money available for regional selective assistance to £67 million to meet that demand.

  Grant in aid for the Welsh Development Agency will be increased by almost £10 million, a rise of nearly 16 per cent. The board believes overall expenditure of £167 million can be achieved for 1994–95, given its ability to sell assets. This will enable the agency to build on its success in attracting inward investment to Wales and to continue its support for our indigenous businesses.

  The budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales will also increase, to almost £17 million, bringing its expected overall expenditure in 1994–95 to over £27 million. This increase will enable the board to continue its business park developments at Penrhyndeudraeth and Cardigan, to develop its programmes for the western areas which suffer most from rural decline, and to continue to support the Wales tourist board's Tourism 2000 strategy.

HEALTH

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are provided currently by the Brighton health care NHS trust; how many were proposed in the original redevelopment plan; and how many are proposed under the latest, revised plans drawn up by the trust.

  Dr. Mawinney
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Spiers, chairman of Brighton health care national health service trust for details.

  1 October 1989

  1 October 1990

  1 October 1991

  1 October 1992

  1 October 1993

  Numbers of GPs

  25,608

  25,622

  25,686

  25,968

  26,116

  Mersey Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many personnel are currently employed in administration and how many are employed in clinical services in Mersey regional health authority; and how many have been so employed for each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Administrators and Clinical Staff in Mersey Regional Health Authority 1982–92 (whole-time equivalent)

  Administrative and Clerical

  Direct Care1

  Medical and Dental

  1982

  5,350

  25,870

  2,050

  1983

  5,320

  25,780

  2,120

  1984

  5,450

  25,530

  2,120

  1985

  5,260

  25,970

  2,180

  1986

  5,280

  26,160

  2,170

  1987

  5,400

  26,000

  2,150

  1988

  5,560

  26,180

  2,170

  1989

  5,790

  26,180

  2,240

  1990

  5,810

  25,390

  2,350

  1991

  6,160

  24,510

  2,450

  1992

  6,240

  23,940

  2,530

  Notes

  1. Figures relate to national health service staff employed within Mersey region.

  2.1 Direct Care care includes nursing and midwifery, professions allied to medicine, professional and technical and scientific and professional. Figures since 1989 are affected by the regrading of some senior nurses to senior manager posts. Since 1990 figures have been affected by the exclusion of Project 2000 nurses.

  3. Figures exclude agency nursing staff and locum medical and dental staff.

  GP Fund-holders
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population of Berkshire is registered at(a) fund-holding and (b) non-fund-holding general practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the general practitioner fund-holding scheme in their areas. Nationally 25 per cent. of the population is covered by GP fund-holders. In Oxford region this is 33 per cent.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of general practitioners, and the total number of secretaries, administrators, receptionists, and practice managers in general practice in each of the last five years.

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

  The date relate to England:
  391

  Staff type

  1 October 1989

  1 October 1990

  1 October 1991

  1 October 1992

  1 April 1993

  Management and administration

  n/a

  4,595

  5,679

  6,147

  6,147

  Secretary/clerical

  4,043

  30,576

  10,495

  11,166

  11,109

  Receptionist

  22,535

  —

  20,824

  21,331

  20,862

  1. The data relate to whole time equivalent staff in England.

  2. No data for management and administrative staff are available for 1989; the figure for 1990 relates only to practice managers.

  3. The figure for the secretary/clerical category for 1989 relates only to clerical staff; secretaries are included with receptionists. The 1990 figure for secretary/clerical category includes receptionists.

  4. The number of GPs in England has risen steadily since 1979 and now currently stands at an all-time high. The increase in administration staff employed by GPs enables them to delegate much of the day to day business of running a practice. This in turn provides the opportunity for GPs to devote more time to the delivery of clinical care to their patients. While the number of administration staff has increased it should be noted that the number of practice nurses has risen from 888 to 9,120 whole time equivalents an increase of over 900 per cent. between 1 October 1989 and 1 April 1993.

  NHS Users
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population using the national health service are(a) female and (b) members of an ethnic minority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Of all in-patient episodes recorded in England for 1989–90, the latest year for which information is available, 57·6 per cent. of cases were recorded as female. Of episodes with a diagnostic code other than complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium, 52·1 per cent. of cases were recorded.

  Information is not collected centrally on patients' ethnic group, although we are currently consulting on the principle of doing so in respect of in-patients.

  Diseases
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) dysentery, (b) typhoid, (c) paratyphoid, (d) malaria, (e) TB and (f) jaundice were reported for England and Wales in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Notifications of selected infectious diseases reported in England and Wales 1988–92

  Disease

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Dysentery

  3,692

  3,278

  2,756

  9,935

  16,960

  Typhoid

  174

  164

  178

  182

  201

  Paratyphoid

  180

  88

  93

  99

  81

  Malaria

  1,271

  1,478

  1,493

  1,553

  1,189

  Tuberculosis

  5,164

  5,432

  5,204

  5,436

  5,799

  Viral hepatitis1

  5,063

  7,071

  9,005

  8,860

  8,993

  1 Infective jaundice was redesignated viral hepatitis on 1 October 1988.

  The rise in notifications of viral hepatitis seen between 1988 and 1990 was due to increased notifications of hepatitis A infection. This rise was consistent with the regular peaks in incidence of hepatitis A seen every seven to nine years.

  The rise in notification of dysentery in 1992 was seen in all major conurbations other than London. Trends in dysentery also exhibit a periodicity, with peaks every seven to eight years, although the peak in 1992 was higher than other peaks in the previous two decades.

  NHS Expenditure
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she plans to spend the extra money for the NHS announced in the Budget; and what percentage of it will be spent on administration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced allocations to regional health authorities for 1994–95 on 7 December at columns 198-200. Revenue allocations will rise by an average of 1·3 per cent. above inflation. In addition, health authorities have been given a 2·25 per cent. efficiency target, to ensure existing resources are used to improve patient services. Health authorities and trusts should reduce their administrative costs as far as they can, consistent with sound management of the £22 billion spent on the hospital and community health services. My right hon. Friend recently announced our proposals for streamlining the management structure of the national health service. This will result in further substantial savings in administrative costs so we can maximise the proportion of NHS expenditure devoted to direct patient care.

  It is for individual health authorities to determine their own purchasing priorities within the framework of the NHS Management Executive's planning and priorities guidance for 1994–95, EL(93)54 published in June, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the figures from the returns for September showing how many junior doctors are contracted for an average of more than 83 hours per week, nationally and by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of junior doctors and dentists in England contracted for more than a maximum average of 83 hours a week, at 30 September, is as follows:

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  0

  Yorkshire

  5

  Trent

  0

  East Anglian

  4

  North West Thames

  1

  North East Thames

  32

  South East Thames

  5

  South West Thames

  2

  Wessex

  0

  Oxford

  0

  South Western

  0

  West Midlands

  42

  Mersey

  0

  393

  Region

  Number

  North Western

  0

  ENGLAND

  91

  Regional task forces are monitoring these remaining posts closely to ensure that they are eliminated as quickly as possible.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that the national health service has adequate specialist beds for the treatment of leukaemia.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that the clinical facilities currently available for the specialist treatment of patients with leukaemia are in any way inadequate.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many chairmen of health authorities in England received emoluments exceeding £500 per attendance in the last 12 months;

  (2) how many non-executive directors of health authorities in England received emoluments which exceeded £500 per attendance in the last 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Chairmen and non-executive members of health authorities receive an annual remuneration and are not paid on the basis of attendance.

  The amount of emoluments paid to individual chairmen and non-executive members of health authorities is not available centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers(a) a district health authority/and (b) a family health services authority have to withold from publication any report on an agenda item to be considered in public session.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  District health authorities and family health services authorities are public bodies to which the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960 apply. Unless a resolution has been passed by the board to exclude the public on grounds of confidentiality, the public would be entitled to attend meetings and to obtain relevant papers.

  NHS Management Executive
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to instruct the NHS Management Executive regional offices to hold meetings in public after the abolition of regional health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no such plans. The abolition of regional health authorities is subject to the passage through Parliament of the proposed Bill.

  Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the NHS of printing and publishing, by each regional health authority, documents for the information of the public.
  394
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chief executives of the regional health authorities for details.

  Spina Bifida
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the rate of spina bifida among newborn babies.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992, the rate per 10,000 total births—live and still—was 1·2 for spina bifida in England and Wales.

  NHS Patients (Repatriation)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been flown back from abroad in each year since 1990; and what was the cost to the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Neither United Kingdom nor European Community legislation contains any power allowing national health service funds to be used to defray repatriation costs incurred outside the United Kingdom by United Kingdom residents. There is no central record of numbers privately repatriated by air.

  Young People (Supervision)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average monthly cost of keeping a young person in secure accommodation in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the average monthly cost of supervision under the Children and Young Persons Acts for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Random Breath Testing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which EC countries have a policy of random breath testing by the police.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  Police powers vary from country to country and information about precise breath testing procedures in each EC country is not available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Sir John Cope
  Information relating to expenditure by the Treasury for the use of Government car service cars by Ministers in 1990–91 is not now readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The figure for 1991–92 was £260,355. Five cars were allocated to Treasury Ministers on long-term hire.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the most recent estimates of the number of people who are(a) under state retirement age

  395
  and (b) over state retirement age, and receiving a pension from a recognised scheme, giving in each case the number who are (i) non-taxpayers, (ii) basic rate taxpayers and (iii) higher rate taxpayers, in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what are the most recent estimates of the number of people who are (a) under state retirement age and (b) over state retirement age, and receiving (i) an occupational pension and (ii) a personal pension, giving in each case the number who are (1) non-taxpayers, (2) basic rate taxpayers and (3) higher rate taxpayers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates of the number of people in receipt of an occupational pension in 1993–94 are in the table. Information is not available on the number of people receiving personal pensions.

  Number in receipt of an occupational pension (thousands)

  Aged under 65

  Aged 65 or over

  Lower rate taxpayers

  400

  1,000

  Basic rate taxpayers

  900

  1,100

  Higher rate taxpayers

  70

  80

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average individual cumulative gain(a) in cash prices and (b) in 1993–94 prices to those earning (i) £5,000, (ii) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iv) £20,000, (v) £25,000, (vi) £30,000, (vii) £40,000, (viii) £50,000, (ix) £60,000 and (x) £100,000, as a result of each change in (1) income tax and (2) income tax and national insurrance, since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the reduction in liability resulting from changes in national insurance and income tax rates, allowances and thresholds are in the table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1993–94 levels by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation.

  Comparison between 1993–94 and 1978–79 indexed regimes

  Average reduction (£) in:

  Range of individuals income in 1993–94(£)

  Income tax

  Income tax and national insurance contributions

  Under 5,000

  140

  170

  5,000 - 10,000

  380

  360

  10,000 - 15,000

  740

  630

  15,000 - 20,000

  1,080

  820

  20,000 - 25,000

  1,460

  960

  25,000 - 30,000

  1,860

  1,290

  30,000 - 40,000

  2,240

  1,670

  40,000 - 50,000

  3,380

  2,810

  50,000 - 60,000

  5,760

  5,210

  60,000 - 70,000

  8,700

  8,100

  70,000 - 80,000

  13,000

  12,400

  Over 80,000

  47,700

  47,200

  Average

  1,200

  1,010

  I regret that a reliable analysis incomes over £100,000 is not available.

  For the purposes of the calculations, of 1978–79 has been applied directly to the income base of
  396
  1993–94. In practice retention of the 1978–79 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the reduction in income tax in 1993–94 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime, broken down into the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers, showing the total reduction and the average gain.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates on the annual reduction in income tax liability for 1993–94 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime are given in the table. The 1978–79 regime has been indexed by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation. For the purpose of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the later income base of 1993–94. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Quantile group of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Nos. of tax-payers

  Reduction in tax

  Average gain

  (Per cent)

  (Thousands)

  (£ million)

  (£)

  Top 1

  300

  9,600

  35,800

  Top 5

  1,300

  13,400

  10,000

  Top 10

  2,700

  16,000

  6,000

  Bottom 50

  13,300

  4,500

  340

  All taxpayers

  26,700

  31,800

  1,200

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the regional distribution of(a) the personal tax burden and (b) the overall tax burden.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the amount of income tax payable by region for 1991–92, the latest year for which regional information is available. Regional information for taxes overall is not available.

  Region

  Amount of income tax liability of residents (£ million)

  North

  2,710

  Youkshire and Humberside

  4,840

  East Midlands

  6,360

  West Midland

  4,300

  East Anglia

  5,210

  South East

  28,800

  South West

  5,270

  Wales

  2,500

  Scotland

  5,170

  Northern Ireland

  1,050

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people and what percentage of all taxpayers in(a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland paid the top rate of income tax in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table provides estimates of the number of taxpayers in the United Kingdom liable to income tax at a higher rate—that is any rate above the basic rate. Prior to the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91, married couples are counted as one unit. It is not possible for the Northern Ireland component to be reliably
  397
  distinguished for each of these years separately. However, for the years pre-independent taxation, 1980–81 to 1989–90, the number of higher rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland averaged about 20,000, about 4 per cent. of all taxpayers in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that there were 22,000 higher rate taxpaying individuals in Northern Ireland in 1991–92, which is around 4¼ per cent. of all taxpaying individuals in the province.

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate, 1978–79 to 1993–941

  Thousands

  As percentage of all taxpayers

  1978–79

  763

  3·6

  1979–80

  674

  3·1

  1980–81

  796

  3·8

  1981–82

  1,090

  5·2

  1982–83

  983

  4·7

  1983–84

  860

  4·2

  1984–85

  930

  4·6

  1985–86

  950

  4·7

  1986–87

  1,120

  5·5

  1987–88

  1,190

  5·7

  1988–89

  1,350

  6·4

  1989–90

  1,500

  7·0

  1990–91

  1,700

  6·5

  1991–92

  1,620

  6·2

  21992–93

  1,800

  7·1

  21993–94

  1,900

  7·5

  1 Single people and married couples for years up to and including 1989–90, individuals from 1990–91.

  2 Provisional estimates projected from the 1991–92 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each region of the United Kingdom(a) the number of higher rate taxpayers, (b) the number of basic rate taxpayers and (c) the number that pay no national insurance or income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information shown in the table is the latest available on a regional basis and is for 1991–92.

  Thousands

  Region

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Taxpayers liable only at basic rate

  Non-taxpayers aged over 16

  North

  50

  1,220

  1,190

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  93

  2,050

  1,810

  North West

  122

  2,620

  2,290

  East Midlands

  83

  1,760

  1,360

  West Midlands

  95

  2,160

  1,900

  East Anglia

  53

  975

  640

  South East

  832

  7,780

  5,480

  South West

  114

  2,160

  1,530

  Wales

  36

  1,210

  1,050

  Scotland

  108

  2,220

  1,760

  Northern Ireland

  22

  490

  670

  VAT
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much value added tax was paid per annum by a family consisting of a married man on half of average male earnings, his wife and two children in 1978–79; and what is the most recent estimate;

  (2) what estimate he has as to the average VAT paid per annum by a family consisting of a married man on (a) half
  398
  of, (b) three quarters of, (c) twice and (d) three times average male earnings, his wife and two children in 1978–79; and what is the most recent estimate.

  Sir John Cope
  Estimates of VAT payments outside the range of three quarters to one-and-a-half times average earnings are not available. It is estimated that a married couple with two children on three quarters average earnings will pay approximately £700 a year in VAT in 1993–94 and £1,700 a year in VAT in 1993–94 at one-and-a-half times average earnings. Figures for VAT payments by such a family in earlier years, including 1978–79 have been deposited in the Library. Estimates of VAT payments are subject to wide margins of error.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the changes to the VAT system in each year since 1978–79, including both changes in the rate of VAT and changes in classification of goods and services.

  Sir John Cope
  On 18 June 1979 the standard rate of VAT of 8 per cent. and the higher rate of 12½per cent. were unified at 15 per cent., which was raised to 17½ per cent. from 1 April 1991. A comprehensive list of all changes in the VAT system going back to 1978–79 could be made only at disproportionate cost, but the main changes to the VAT liability of goods and services have been the extension of the standard rate to:

  —hot take away food from 1 May 1984;

  —building alterations from 1 June 1984;

  —the publication of advertisements in newspapers etc., from 1 May 1985;

  —the construction and sale of new non-residential buildings from 1 April 1989; and

  —fuel and power supplied to business, and to water and sewerage supplied to manufacturing industry, from I July 1990.

  Landlords were given the option to tax non-residential rents and sales of used buildings from 1 August 1989. Supplies of stockbroking services, which were previously standard rated, were made exempt from 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of how much VAT is paid per annum by(a) an average family and (b) a married couple on average income; and how much they paid in 1978–79.

  Sir John Cope
  It is estimated that a family consisting of a married couple on average earnings with two children will pay approximately £1,010 a year in VAT, and a couple with no children £980 a year in VAT in 1993–94. Comparable figures for the same family types for 1978–79 have been deposited in the Library. Estimates of VAT payments are subject to wide margins of error.

  Exports
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of the United Kingdom's exports for each of the last four quarters.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest information is available on the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library; the indentifier is DJAZ.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest quarterly figure he has for the total level of export orders; and what the total was for the same period last year.
  399
  Mr. Portillo
  Quantitative data on the total level of export orders is not available.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Treasury has forgone since January in lost excise duty from the cross-border sales of(a) wines, (b) spirits, (c) beers, (d) cigarettes and tobacco and (e) all of (c) and (d).

  Sir John Cope
  The table shows the estimated total revenue losses, covering both excise duty and VAT, arising from increased cross-border shopping for the whole of 1993. It is not possible to give reliable estimates for different types of alcoholic drink. The estimates have been derived from the results of household surveys conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. They take account of the fact that the some cross-border shopping took place before 1993, also that some of the purchases abroad are likely to represent new consumption, rather than substituting for purchases in the United Kingdom.

  Revenue loss in 1993 (£m)

  Excise duty

  VAT

  Total

  Alcoholic drinks

  55

  20

  75

  Tobacco products

  80

  20

  100

  Total

  135

  40

  175

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact in 1994–95 on the retail prices index of raising £1 billion from(a) duty on tobacco products, (b) duty on beer, (c) duty on wine and spirits, (d) duty on petrol, (e) VAT and (f) vehicle excise duty.

  Sir John Cope
  The estimated impacts on the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments are as follows:

  £million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Quota1

  1,104·3

  ESAF2

  17·0

  1·5

  1·5

  10·0

  20·0

  Net SDR charges3

  67·9

  69·8

  56·0

  58·3

  558·2

  Interest received on reserve tranche position4

  33·3

  27·8

  27·3

  22·2

  519·2

  1As a member of the International Monetary Fund, the United Kingdom pays a subscription, its quota, which was last increased in 1992. 25 per cent. of this increase was paid in special drawing rights from holdings in the exchange equalisation account. This did ot reduce the level of reserves as our reserve position with the fund—the amount the United Kingdom can draw on demand—was increased commensurately. The rest was paid from the National Loans Fund (NLF), in the form of sterling non-interest bearing notes which were placed on deposit at the Bank of England and returned to the NLF. These monetary transactions leave public expenditure and the PSBR unchanged.

  2 The United Kingdom makes an annual contribution to the interest subsidy account of the enhanced structural adjustment facility (ESAF), which is a trust fund administered by the IMF. This scores in the ODA's programme as public expenditure.

  3 There is a charge to pay on holdings by a member of special drawing rights. Interest is received by the member on its SDR holdings. As the United Kingdom currently holds fewer SDRs than its allocation, it makes a net payment to the fund from the exchange equalisation account which is recorded as a monetary transaction.

  4 The United Kingdom receives interest on its reserve tranche position in the IMF, when IMF holdings of sterling are less than the United Kingdom quota. If IMF holdings of sterling are greater than the UK quota, the United Kingdom is required to pay a charge via the exchange equalisation account. Transactions arising from the United Kingdom's reserve tranche position are monetary transactions that affect United Kingdom reserves.

  5 To end November 1993.

  400

  Per cent.

  Beer

  0·29

  Wine and spirits

  0·90

  Tobacco

  0·41

  Petrol

  0·21

  VED

  0·22

  These estimates assume that the increase in tax is fully passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. The estimates allow for behavioural changes according to the procedure described in annex A to chapter 4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95." Increases in petrol duty and VED fall partly on business, so the long run RPI effect for these items is likely to be greater as businesses pass the additional tax on to consumers.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  Expenditure on press advertising by the Treasury is expected to be £57,000 in 1993–94. Expenditure in 1985–86 was £42,000. A comparable figure for 1979–80 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Treasury does not have any expenditure on television and radio advertising.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all sources of British public funds allocated to the IMF in the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table summarises these transactions over the past five years:

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria are used to determine whether or not an address is considered a person's main residence in relation to regulation 5(2) of the Income Tax (Interest Relief) (Housing Associations) Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no statutory definition of the term "main residence". It is a question of fact whether a dwelling is a person's main residence, and the Inland Revenue apply the same criteria for the purposes of regulation 5 as they do for the purposes of the mortgage interest relief legislation generally.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the Securities and Investments Board decided to review cases where personal pensions may have been mis-sold under the Financial Services Act 1986; how many cases are involved; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps the Securities and Investments Board proposes to take to ensure that any individual who was wrongly persuaded to buy a personal pension in contravention of the Securities and Investments Board rules and regulations is compensated in full.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 December 1993 at column 234.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Securities and Investments Board will publish details of its survey of the sale of personal pensions; and in how many cases the Securities and Investments Board believes that there was prima facie evidence of mis-selling;

  (2) if he will ask the Securities and Investments Board to publish the results of its examination of cases where personal pensions may have been mis-sold.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Securities and Investments Board will publish the results of its independent pilot study of pension transfers before Christmas. SIB is co-ordinating a full-scale study to establish the extent of mis-selling.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to review the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no proposals to review the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Departmental Spending Programme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the value of each departmental spending programme for 1994–95 measured by factor prices, where available, relative to 1993–94 outturn and 1992–93 figures.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information sought is not available. However, departmental spending figures were published in the November 1993 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" in cash and real terms in table 5B.3 and table 5B.4 respectively.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the date for the publication of the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 9 December at column 313.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gennady Shtelman
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the case of Gennady Shtelman, a prisoner in Uzbekistan; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am aware of the case of Gennady Shtelman and have received a number of representations on his behalf.

  During President Karimov's visit to London in November, I raised with him the importance of observing human rights, in line with his country's CSCE commitments and other international conventions. Mr. Shtelman's case was raised at official level. Our ambassador in Tashkent will continue to monitor his and other cases.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Official transport for Ministers was provided by the Government car service during 1990–91 at a cost of £328,050. Six vehicles were provided.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion she has had with the Spanish Government about Gibraltar; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, met Senor Solana to discuss Gibraltar on 1 March. They discussed possible ways of developing the Brussels process and the way ahead generally. Since March officials have met three times, and a further meeting is planned for 14 December. My right hon. Friend hopes to have further discussions with Senor Solana in the early part of next year.

  Manchester United Supporters
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1) pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 678, what response he received to his representations to the Turkish ambassador of 8 November concerning the treatment of Manchester United supporters;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 2 December, Official Report, column 678, whether the British ambassador in

  403
  Ankara has yet received a report, or other response to his representations to the Turkish authorities on the treatment of Manchester United supporters;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 2 December, Official Report, column 678, in respect of how many Manchester United supporters allegations of maltreatment were sent to the Turkish ambassador.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British ambassador in Ankara has not yet received a response to his representations to the Turkish authorities.

  The Turkish ambassador in London presented a report to us on 23 November. There was much in it to clarify about the treatment by the Turkish authorities of British football fans. On 2 December, we sent the ambassador a list of the 16 main allegations and asked for the Turkish authorities' comments.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints have been received from the Turkish authorities relating to the treatment of Galatasaray supporters in Manchester.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No complaints have been received from the Turkish authorities about the treatment of Galatasaray supporters in Manchester.

  European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out each provision of each treaty which applies to the European Community pillar and each provision of each treaty which applies to (a) the European Union collectively and (b) to each of the other pillars of the Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As I made clear in my answer of 2 December at column 680, the Government use the terms European Community and European Union according to the subject matter under discussion. The treaty of Rome, the treaty of Paris and the EURATOM treaty, as amended by titles II, III and IV of the treaty on European Union apply to the "Community" pillar; title V of the Treaty on European Union applies to the CFSP pillar; title VI applies to the justice and home affairs pillar; and titles I and VII apply to the European Union collectively as well as to individual pillars. There are some cross-references to different pillars within each title.

  Anguilla
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stage he has reached in resolving the dispute between Anguilla and Her Majesty's Government regarding sovereignty, internal affairs, building of prisons and other matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is no such dispute over sovereignty between Anguilla and Her Majesty's Government. We concluded a country policy plan with the Government of Anguilla in August 1993. The plan provides for a capital aid programme of £10·5 million over the next four years, including a new structure to replace the dilapidated prison.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects on nuclear non-proliferation of the partial ratification in the Ukrainian Parliament of the START I treaty.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made clear to the Ukrainian Government that we do not consider the resolution on ratification of START I by the Ukrainian Parliament to be acceptable. The Ukrainian Government, however, have confirmed that they remain committed to Ukrainian non-nuclear weapons status. We will continue to urge the Ukrainian Government to secure Ukraine's full implementation of the START I treaty, and accession to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state, without further delay.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the reasons for the Government of St. Helena excluding Mr. Timmreck from returning to the island in advance of any exclusion order being made.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for the Government of St. Helena. It is in the hands of solicitors and is the subject of litigation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on occupational pensions specific to pension funds of public industries that have been privatised.

  Mr. Hague
  The pension schemes of former public industries operate within the same legal framework as all private sector schemes.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the proposed full list of tests and points for assessing qualification for the categories of incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government published a consultation document "A consultation on the medical assessment for incapacity benefit" on 1 December. This document, which is freely available, outlines the initial stages in the development of the proposed medical test and seeks comments on how incapacity for work is to be defined and scored. A copy has been placed in the Library. AD comments are most welcome. The results of the consultation and an evaluation exercise will determine how the test is finally framed.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to make personal pensions attractive across the age range; and if he will make a statement.
  405
  Mr. Hague
  I have today published a consultation paper on age-related rebates. The results of this exercise will help to formulate our detailed policy proposals. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library. The consultation period will end on 15 January 1994.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the result of the appeal hearing on 14 September attended by Mr. M., national insurance number RA 91 50 70 C, into his appeal against the decision of the Benefits Agency to refuse him mobility allowance; when Mr. M. will be notified of the decision on his appeal; and if he will make a statement on the interval between hearing and notification.

  Mr. Scott
  The responsibility for the administration of appeals is a matter for the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, his honour Judge Thorpe. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account the Child Support Agency takes of existing maintenance payment made in respect of families living outside Britain when assessing liability for maintenance payments.

  Mr. Burt
  The formula which the Child Support Agency uses to assess maintenance does not take account of other maintenance arrangements, whether or not they involve persons living abroad.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued by his Department to Benefits Agency to advise their local offices on which categories of jobs might be suitable for disabled people in receipt of invalidity benefit; and what representations he has received in response.

  Mr. Scott
  Guidance issued to adjudication officers refers them to the "Standard Occupational Classification". This has been developed jointly by the Department of Employment and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Both the "Standard Occupational Classification" and "The Adjudication Officers Guide" are in the Library.

  Girocheques
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many replacement girocheques were issued by his Department in each of the last five years; and what was their total value for each of these years;

  (2) what changes there have been in the criteria used by his Department for the issuing of replacement girocheques;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the criteria used by his Department for the issuing of replacement girocheques in cases where the original cheque has been lost or stolen; and if he will make a statement on what flexibility unemployment benefit offices have in administering this policy.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of payment of benefit by girocheque 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.
  406
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 9 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about replacement girocheques issued by the Department of Social Security.
  The number of girocheques replaced after being reported missing or stolen, and the value of those replaced girocheques (based on average value of issues) in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number replaced

  Value £ million

  1988–89

  45,765

  3·53

  1989–90

  53,636

  4·31

  1990–91

  58,802

  5·38

  1991–92

  67,265

  6·47

  1992–93

  90,933

  8·93

  Additionally, the Employment Service Agency acts as our agent in the provision of girocheques to those who are unemployed and claiming Income Support. Data relevant to those issues cannot be seperately identified and are, therefore, not included in the tables above.
  Since the formation of the Benefits Agency there has been no change in the criteria for the issuing of replacement girocheques.
  I am informed by Mike Fogden, the Chief Executive of the Employment Service Agency that the criteria they use in the issuing of replacement girocheques is the same as that of the Benefits Agency, namely:
  To issue a prompt replacement whenever a girocheque is reported as not received, lost, stolen or destroyed unless there is reason to doubt that the report is genuine.
  The reasons for doubt include:

  (a) an unreasonable delay in making the report.

  (b) incomplete or inconsistent answers on the report form.

  (c) Post Office confirmation that the girocheque has been cashed.

  (d) a previous history of loses.

  Decisions on replacing girocheques reported as lost or stolen are made by Executive Officers based in Employment Service Jobcentres or Benefit Agency offices, who take account of the individual circumstances of each case.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about his Department's future plans for the disability living allowances Minister's hotline unit; and how many cases have been dealt with by the unit in each month since its establishment.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 9 December 1993.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) Hotline.
  The Hotline continues to operate at the DLA Unit in Blackpool and achieve a 48-hour call back service. There are presently no plans to alter this facility. However, as the performance for handling DLA claims is now being sustained at a high level we will have to consider at some point whether there remains a need for the service in the same form to be maintained in the future. Members will be advised of any changes if, and when we propose such changes.

  407
  As requested, I have provided details in the attached appendix of the number of cases that have been dealt with by the Ministers Hotline since its inception.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Cases dealt with by DLA Ministers Hotline

  Number of calls

  1992

  July

  417

  August

  733

  September

  690

  October

  1,132

  November

  885

  Decenmber

  513

  1993

  January

  858

  February

  707

  March

  609

  April

  469

  May

  250

  June

  193

  July

  178

  August

  108

  September

  100

  October

  88

  November

  78

  Fraud
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the basis of the calculation of sector fraud achievement of claimed savings of £491 million in weekly benefit and £25 million in instrument payment savings on page 15 of the document, "Fighting Fraud in 1992–93".

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefit fraud 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.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 9 November 1993:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the basis of sector fraud's savings as published in Fighting Fraud.
  With regard to the weekly benefit saving, a multiplier of 32 weeks is applied to the amount of weekly benefit savings recorded as a result of successful fraud investigations or interventions. This single multiplier is currently applied to all benefits payable by the Department and reflects the anticipated average period for which claims could be expected to continue in the absence of a successful fraud intervention.
  Instrument of Payment savings are not subject to any multiplier and all such savings are recorded at face value.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

SCOTLAND

  Kilgarth Tip, Coatbridge
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to take a decision about the application by City of Glasgow district council in respect of Kilgarth tip, Coatbridge.

  Mr. Lang
  The letters conveying the decision about the application by City of Glasgow district council were issued on Monday 6 December.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory provisions govern the voting rights of people with learning difficulties; what plans he has to ensure that people with learning disabilities are given better opportunities to vote; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statutory provisions are contained in the representation of the people and the mental health legislation. To be entitled to vote all electors must satisfy criteria of eligibility and competence. Eligibility is governed by the registration process and it is the responsibility of electoral registration officers to determine whether or not an applicant satisfies the statutory conditions, including the common law requirement that an elector should not lack the capacity to vote because of profound learning difficulties. At an election the presiding officer also carries a responsibility to satisfy himself as to the elector's capacity to vote.

  The Scottish Office Home and Health Department will shortly be issuing revised guidance on these matters to electoral registration officers.

  Forestry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the forestry review group's report.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: The advice of the review group is, and will remain, confidential to Ministers.

  A7
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to publish the route action plan covering the A7 trunk route south of Hawick; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: I expect to publish a leaflet setting out the details of the route action plan early in 1994.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of arable land on Scottish non-LFA farms will require to be taken out of production in 1994, on the basis of IACS figures, to avoid liability for penalties under the arable area payment scheme in 1995, showing(a) the standard set-aside requirement, (b) the penalty from 1993 and (c) any further area arising from the discrepancy between IACS statistics and previous census statistics submitted by the Department to the European Commission;

  (2) if he will estimate the reduction in production of spring-sown cereals in 1994 arising from the arable area payments scheme penalty for 1993 and any further reduction in cropping that may be required to avoid a further penalty in 1995; and if he will make a statement on the impact of that reduction on the Scottish maltsters, millers and other cereal using industries.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: No arable land requires to be taken out of production in 1994 or 1995, nor is there a discrepancy in the statistics.
  409
  The rules of the arable area payments scheme made clear that the total claimed arable area must not exceed the regional base area; and that any excess would result in penalties. The scheme is voluntary; and if farmers do apply there is no obligation to do so on all their arable land. They may therefore sow as much arable crops as they wish without setting aside any land.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fraud
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the sentences available for fraud.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are satisfied that the penalties for offences involving fraud are adequate. Fraudulent trading and false accounting both carry a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment; and obtaining property by deception has a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

  Prison Officers (Accommodation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officer accommodation units at each of the London prisons were still owned by the Prison Department as of 1 December.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 10 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prison officer's quarters were still owned by the Prison Service at each of the London prisons. The number as at 1 December 1993 were as follows:

  Number

  Belmarsh

  13

  Brixton

  120

  Feltham

  86

  Holloway

  150

  Latchmere House

  21

  Pentonville

  94

  Wandsworth

  114

  Wormwood Scrubs

  172

  770

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in England and Wales had been granted a firearms certificate as of 1 December; and for what uses such certificates have been granted.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of firearms certificates which were on issue in England and Wales as at 31 December 1992 was 136,810. Corresponding information for 1 December 1993 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The law requires that, before issuing a firearm certificate, the chief officer of police must satisfy himself
  410
  that the applicant has a good reason for requiring the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the certificate is sought. No central record is kept of the reasons for which certificates are granted.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation on dangerous dogs in the coming Session.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Farriers (Registration) Act 1975
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many communications he has received during the consultation on deregulation of the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975; how many were in favour and how many against; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Department has received 16 responses to its consultative letter concerning the deregulation review of the Farriers (Registration) Acts 1975 and 1977. Eleven were in favour of retaining the present controls and five argued for deregulation.

  Riding Establishments Acts
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many communications he has received during the consultation on deregulation of the Riding Establishments Acts; how many were in favour and how many against; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Department has received 12 responses to its consultative letter on the deregulation review of the Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970. All were in favour of retaining present controls.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what account he takes, in reaching decisions on tariff sentences upon those convicted of offences deemed political, of the individual offenders and mitigating factors such as age or nature of motivation;

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) Abdul Qayyum Raja, a prisoner at HMP Long Lartin, (b) his legal representatives and (c) other individuals and organisations about his case;

  (3) if he will reduce the sentence imposed under tariff arrangements on Abdul Qayyum Raja; when he intends to announce his decision in this case; and if he will disclose full information and explanation for the tariff sentence he finally decides upon in this case;

  (4) what representations he has received from (a) Mohammed Riaz, a prisoner at HMP Whitemoor, (b) his legal representatives and (c) other individuals and organisations on his case;

  (5) if he will reduce the sentence imposed under the tariff arrangements on Mohammed Riaz; when he intends to announce his decision in this case; and if he will disclose full information and explanation for the tariff sentence he finally decides upon in his case;

  (6) if he will disclose full information about each factor which he takes into account in reaching decisions concerning the tariff; and if he will make a statement on the effect of the judgment in the House of Lords in the case of Doody and Others in 1993.
  411
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The arrangements for determining the period which mandatory life sentence prisoners—including those convicted of politically motivated murders —should serve in custody in order to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence are set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's replies of 27 July 1993 at columns 863-85 and 4 November 1993 at columns 376-78. The procedures for disclosing such decisions and related information to the prisoners concerned are also described.

  In deciding the period to be served in custody all available information, including advice from the judiciary, representations on the prisoners' behalf and any mitigating factors will be fully taken into account. The statement by the right hon. Sir Leon Brittan, as Secretary of State in 1983, that terrorists and certain other specified categories of murderer can normally expect to serve at least 20 years will also be relevant in some cases.

  As to the cases of Mr. Raja and Mr. Riaz, representations have been made on their behalf by their legal representatives, Members of both Houses of Parliament and members of the public. Mr. Riaz has also made representations direct. All these representations are being carefully considered and decisions will be taken shortly. Mr. Raja and Mr. Riaz will be informed separately of the period set in their case and each of them will be given reasons for the decision.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received supporting the view that tariff sentences should be set by the trial judge in open court upon hearing representations on behalf of the prisoner immediately upon conviction.

  Mr. Maclean
  From time to time, we receive representations supporting the view that when a mandatory life sentence is passed on a person convicted of the offence of murder the period necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence should be stated by the trial judge in open court after the offender has had an opportunity to make representations.

  Custody Costs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost of custody per inmate month in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 10 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of custody per inmate month.
  The average monthly cost of holding an inmate in custody was £2,142 for 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average monthly cost of a supervision order combined with intensive intermediate treatment or specified activities in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the average monthly cost of a probation order in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) what was the average monthly cost of a community service order in the last year for which figures are available.
  412
  Mr. Maclean
  The latest information on the costs of probation and community service orders is set out in table 12.3 of "Probation Statistics, England and Wales, 1992", which is in the Library of the House.

  The average monthly costs of a probation order is estimated at £98 and the average monthly cost of a community service order is estimated at £95. The costs of supervision orders when combined with other requirements may vary greatly and the equivalent figures could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost of custody per inmate month in(a) open and (b) closed youth establishments in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 10 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of custody per inmate month in open and closed youth establishments.
  In 1992–93 the average monthly cost of holding an inmate in an open youth establishment and a closed youth establishment was £2,747 and £2,132 respectively.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average monthly cost of cautioning-plus schemes in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the average cost of administering a caution in the last year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  No figures are available on the cost of administering a caution. Although it is not possible to calculate the average monthly cost of so called "caution-plus" schemes, information from two long established schemes suggests that the average cost of each supported caution is in the range £300-£1,100.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average monthly cost of bail support schemes in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office probation supervision grant scheme currently makes grants to 11 projects solely or mainly for bail support; other projects may include some bail support work.

  The average monthly Home Office grant to these bail support projects in the financial year 1993–94 is £4,062. However, this may not fully reflect the cost of bail support projects as projects may well receive funding from other sources.

  Security Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks his Department makes to ensure that security firms used by his Department do not employ staff who have criminal records.

  Mr. Maclean
  Staff from security firms employed by the Home Office undergo security checks, including criminal record checks, appropriate to the nature of their work and place of employment.

  Winston Silcott
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to take a decision in respect of the reference of the case of Winston Silcott to the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to be in a position to reach a decision shortly.

  Murder Sentences
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the shortest sentence served for murder in the last 30 years; and what were the circumstances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Barbara Roche, dated 10 December 1993:
  Shortest sentence served for murder in the last 30 years
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the shortest sentence served for murder in the last 30 years and what the circumstances were.
  The shortest sentence served was one day. This occurred in two unrelated cases where the inmates died one day after reception.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average sentence served by those convicted of murder and later released.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 10 December 1993:
  Average sentence length for murder
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average time served by inmates sentenced for murder and who have since been released.
  I attach a copy of a table showing the numbers of life sentenced prisoners released from 1981–91. This information is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Table 8.5 of the latest volume, for 1991, CM 2157), a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the findings of the independent inquiry into the mandatory life sentence chaired by Lord Lane; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on victims and their families of knowing the sentence imposed on those convicted of murder, as recommended in the independent inquiry into the mandatory life sentence chaired by Lord Lane.

  Mr. Maclean
  I consider that the report of the Committee on the Penalty for Murder has usefully drawn together the arguments for a change in the existing law under which the mandatory penalty for murder is a sentence of life imprisonment. In considering the report's414
  conclusions, I will, of course, take into account the possible effects of any change on the families of murder vicitims. But I have not been persuaded by arguments I have so far heard that any change is necessary to the present law.

  Banking Services (Sundays)
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide that the services provided by bank and building societies to individuals such as automatic cash dispensers, telephone banking and cash and credit card transactions should be restricted on Sundays; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. The Sunday Trading Bill contained on introduction three options for reform of the Sunday trading laws in England and Wales. A Committee of the whole House on 8 December chose the option of partial deregulation. If it becomes law this option would place no restriction on services provided by banks and building societies.

  Deportation Policies
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will annouce the outcome of his internal review of deportation policies and procedures following the death of Joy Gardner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I had hoped to be able to announce the outcome of the review before the House rises, but the review is not yet quite complete. I shall make an announcement as soon as possible after the recess.

  Voluntary Repatriation
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquiries have been received about voluntary repatriation schemes established under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, in the past quarter and the same quarter last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The voluntary repatriation scheme established under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 is operated by the International Social Service of the United Kingdom (ISS) on behalf of the Home Office. In the quarter 1 September to 30 November 1993 a total of 103 inquiries about voluntary repatriation were received by ISS; 43 such inquiries were received in the same quarter last year.

  Immigration Advisory Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the criteria for the appointment of the directors of the organisation formerly known as UKIAS; how many candidates applied; how many(a) black and (b) Asian people were on the shortlist; what were the names of those who interviewed the candidates; and what are the salary and conditions of appointment of the successful candidate.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The appointment was a matter for the trustees of UKIAS's successor body, the immigration appeals advisory service, which is an independent body.

  Prison Rules
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposed changes to the prison rules.

  Mr. Howard
  I have laid prison and young offender institution amendment rules before Parliament to come into effect on 1 January 1994. First, the rules will extend the scope of confidentiality for prisoners' legal correspondence to all correspondence between prisoners and their legal advisers or a court, whether or not legal proceedings have been commenced. The rules set out the circumstances in which such correspondence may be opened, read or stopped. Secondly, the amendments will increase the maximum period of cellular confinement a governor may impose as a disciplinary punishment from three to 14 days for adult prisoners and from three to seven days for young offenders. This is a desirable strengthening in disciplinary powers, particularly in the light of the continuing trend in increased offending in prisons.

  Black and Asian staff in the Ministry of Defence

  Grades within the open structure and occupational groups

  Total Staff at 1 April 1993

  1Total Black Staff

  1Total Asian Staff

  Open Structure Grade 1 (include 1A)

  4

  —

  —

  Open Structure Grade 2

  9

  —

  —

  Open Structure Grade 3

  50

  —

  —

  Open Structure Grade 4

  34

  —

  —

  Open Structure Grade 5

  282

  —

  —

  Open Structure Grade 6

  730

  —

  —

  Open Structure Grade 7

  2,747

  <10

  16

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,211

  —

  <10

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  19

  <10

  <10

  Higher Executive Officer

  3,033

  <10

  <10

  Administration Trainee

  6

  —

  <10

  Executive Officer

  5,771

  45

  46

  Administrative Officer

  14,921

  186

  173

  Administrative Assistant

  7,625

  123

  111

  Senior Economic Assistant

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2

  —

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  29

  —

  —

  Information Officer

  53

  —

  —

  Assistant Information Officer

  2

  —

  —

  Senior Librarian

  16

  —

  —

  Librarian

  49

  —

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  48

  —

  —

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade D

  5

  —

  —

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade E

  6

  —

  —

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade F

  9

  —

  —

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade G

  6

  —

  —

  Museum Conservation Group Grade F

  1

  —

  —

  Chief Constable

  1

  —

  —

  Deputy Chief Constable

  2

  —

  —

  Assistant Chief Constable

  5

  —

  —

  Chief Superintendent

  12

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  27

  —

  —

  Chief Inspector

  66

  —

  <10

  Inspector

  149

  <10

  <10

  Sergeant

  655

  <10

  <10

  Constable

  3,506

  11

  <10

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  2,341

  <10

  16

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  4,009

  <10

  49

  Professional and Technology Officer

  5,439

  14

  17

  Professional and Technology Officer 4

  6

  —

  —

  Technical Grade 1

  406

  —

  <10

  Technical Grade 2

  32

  —

  <10

  Graduate Trainee

  143

  —

  <10

  Trainee Incorporated Engineer

  24

  —

  —

  Senior Mapping and Charting Officer

  120

  —

  —

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  235

  <10

  <10

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  515

  <10

  <10

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 1

  218

  —

  —

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 2

  92

  <10

  <10

  Senior Graphics Officer

  13

  —

  —

DEFENCE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of people employed (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.

  Mr. Aitken
  The following table sets out, by grade, the total number of staff serving in my Department and the total number of black and Asian staff who have responded to the Department's ethnic minority origin survey. Response to the survey was voluntary, and where there are fewer than 10 ethnic minority staff listed in a particular grade, for reasons of personal confidentiality it is not our policy to define precise numbers.
  417

  Grades within the open structure and occupational groups

  1Total Staff at 1 April 1993

  1Total Black Staff

  1Total Asian Staff

  Higher Graphics Officer

  57

  —

  —

  Graphics Officer

  218

  <10

  <10

  Marine Service Officer Grade 1

  15

  —

  —

  Marine Service Officer Grade 2

  92

  —

  —

  Marine Service Officer Grade 3

  176

  —

  —

  Marine Service Officer Grade 4

  108

  —

  —

  Senior Research Officer (R)

  45

  —

  —

  Research Officer (R)

  20

  —

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  16

  —

  —

  Typing Manager

  200

  <10

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  95

  <10

  <10

  Personal Secretary

  836

  <10

  <10

  Typist

  3,698

  86

  38

  Trainee Typist

  6

  —

  —

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1,678

  <10

  30

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1,686

  <10

  36

  Scientific Officer

  1,484

  10

  22

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  735

  10

  10

  Senior Instricutional Officer

  66

  —

  —

  Higher Instructional Officer

  297

  10

  —

  Instructional Officer 1

  1,082

  10

  10

  Instructional Officer 2

  235

  —

  —

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  —

  —

  Chef 1/Chief Cook 1

  12

  —

  —

  Chef 2/Chief Cook 2

  24

  10

  —

  Chief Fire Service Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Fire Officer

  12

  —

  —

  Fire Service Officer 1

  34

  —

  —

  Fire Service Officer 2

  57

  —

  —

  Fire Service Officer 3

  59

  —

  —

  Senior Investigating Officer

  12

  —

  —

  Investigating Officer 1

  61

  —

  —

  Investigating Officer 2

  228

  —

  —

  Museum Technician Grade 2

  1

  —

  —

  Museum Technician Grade 3

  3

  —

  —

  Museum Support Grade 1

  1

  —

  —

  Museum Support Grade 2

  3

  —

  —

  Museum Support Grade 3

  23

  —

  10

  Museum Support Grade 4

  5

  —

  —

  Museum Support Grade 5

  7

  —

  —

  Senior Photographic Officer

  9

  —

  —

  Higher Photographic Officer

  55

  —

  10

  Photographic Officer

  165

  —

  10

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade A

  7

  —

  —

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade B

  33

  —

  —

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade C

  117

  —

  —

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade D

  311

  10

  10

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade E

  135

  —

  10

  Senior Psychologist

  21

  —

  10

  Higher Psychologist

  23

  —

  —

  Psychologist (Graduate Trainee)

  7

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade A

  20

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade B

  131

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade C

  371

  —

  10

  Stores Officer Grade D

  782

  10

  10

  Support Manager 1

  9

  —

  —

  Support Manager 2

  40

  —

  —

  Support Manager 3

  208

  10

  10

  Support Grade Band 1

  1,205

  14

  10

  Support Grade Band 2

  1,048

  37

  13

  Senior Telecommunication Technical Officer

  50

  —

  —

  Higher Telecommunication Technical Officer

  166

  —

  —

  Telecommunication Technical Officer

  391

  10

  —

  Assistant Telecommunication Technical Officer

  475

  10

  10

  Trainee Telecommunication Technical Officer

  53

  —

  —

  Communications Officer 1

  16

  10

  —

  Communications Officer 2

  47

  10

  —

  Communications Officer 3

  132

  10

  —

  Communications Officer 4

  366

  10

  10

  Total Staff in Open Structure and Occupational Groups

  74,468

  600

  658

  Departmental Grades

  14,168

  78

  55

  Industrial Grades

  42,121

  322

  204

  Totals

  131,757

  1,000

  917

  418 419
  Note:There are some 500 Departmental grades and some 850 Industrial grades used in the Ministry of Defence, most of which are managed locally. A detailed breakdown of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  1 Respondents to ethnic minority origin survey.

  United States Military Bases
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States military bases in the United Kingdom as of 1 December.

  Mr. Hanley
  As of 1 December 1993, bases and facilities were made available to the United States visiting forces at the following locations in the United Kingdom:

  Main Operating Bases

  RAF Alconbury

  RAF Lakenheath

  RAF Mildenhall

  RAF Upper Heyford

  Standby Deployment Base

  RAF Fairford

  Storage/Support Facilities

  RAF Brawdy

  Chilwell

  RAF Daws Hill

  Eastcote

  Felixstowe

  RAF Feltwell

  RAF Hythe

  London HQ USN Europe

  RAF Machrihanish

  Marchwood

  RAF Molesworth

  RAF Northwood

  Oakington

  RAF Spadeadam

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Watton

  RAF Welford

  RAF West Ruislip

  West Ruislip

  Wartime Contingency Hospitals

  RAF Arbroath

  RAF Bicester

  RAF Little Rissington

  RAF Nocton Hall

  RAF Upwood

  NATO Ammunition Depot

  NAD Glen Douglas

  Communications Facilities

  RAF Barford St. John

  RAF Barkway Botley Hill

  Bovingdon

  RAF Chelveston

  RAF Chicksands

  Christmas Common

  Coldblow

  RAF Croughton

  RAF Daventry

  RAF Dunkirk

  RAF Edzell

  Menwith Hill Station

  RAF Oakhanger

  RAF Swingate

  RAF Uxbridge

  Departmental Objectives
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his departmental standing objectives.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current departmental standing objectives have been listed on page 2 of the MOD "Departmental Report 1993"—Cm 2201—a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether quantitative data are used in his assessment of the achievement of departmental standing objectives.

  Mr. Hanley
  Performance against departmental standing objectives is assessed on the basis of quantitative data where available and the judgment of military and civilian budget holders reports up the management chain.

  Performance Targets
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been established in his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Performance targets have been set at all levels in the Department, both in the management plans which set out what budget holders undertake to deliver for their delegated budgets and in job plans for individuals. They could be collated centrally only at disproportionate cost.

  Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to determine the figures provided in table 8, page 18 of Cm. 2201, relating to availability, reliability and maintainability of equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Table 8 on page 18 of Cm 2201 gives figures for the percentage by value of contracts for new equipment projects over £1 million which have provisions for availability, reliability and maintainability. The criteria used to determine the figures are that reliability and maintainability requirements should form essential elements of the contract specification, wherever possible linking payment to the demonstration of satisfactory reliability and maintainability in service. Alternative approaches, including warranties and fixed-price support contracts are used where linkage of payment to demonstration is not practicable.

  Chief of the Air Staff
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 54-55, what is the number of occasions in each of the last 12 months on which the Chief of the Air Staff has given a personal briefing to (a) hon. Members, (b) academics and (c) members of the media; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Briefings by the Chief of the Air Staff were given as follows:
  421

  MPs

  Academics

  Media

  January

  —

  —

  —

  February

  —

  —

  4

  March

  1

  —

  3

  April

  —

  —

  —

  May

  1

  —

  —

  June

  —

  —

  —

  July

  —

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  1

  September

  —

  —

  —

  October

  1

  —

  —

  November

  —

  —

  —

  December

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 54-55, whether Mr. David Hart was given a briefing by the Chief of the Air Staff as (a) an academic or (b) a member of the media; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. David Hart was briefed on 27 May by Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief RAF Strike Command because he had published media articles on general defence issues and one particularly about the RAF.

  Maralinga
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the ex-gratia payment towards the clean-up of the Maralinga site will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [pursuant to his answer, 1 December 1993, column 609]: The United Kingdom Government agreed in principle on 14 July to make an ex gratia payment of £20,000,000 to the Federal Government of Australia as a contribution to the cost of the further clean-up of the Maralinga site. A note giving effect to this agreement was signed today by the Australian High Commissioner and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A copy of the note will be placed in the Library of the House. The payment will be phased over six years beginning on 1 January 1994.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Copyright Libraries
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the copyright libraries entitled to a copy of all books published within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sproat
  Under the Copyright Act 1911 publishers are required to deliver, at their own expense, a copy of any new publication to the British library. There are five other copyright libraries: the national libraries of Scotland and Wales; the Bodleian library, Oxford; Cambridge University library; and the library of Trinity college, Dublin. If any of them requests a copy the Copyright Licensing Agency may demand a free copy from the publisher on its behalf.

  Overseas Artifacts
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which artifacts and from which countries, previously held in Britain, have been returned to their countries of origin in the last 10 years; what requests(a) have been rejected and (b) are currently under consideration; and what is the value of the artifacts concerned.

  Mr. Brooke
  This information is not available centrally. The artifacts in question are the property of independent institutions and private owners and any requests for their return would normally be directed to them. The Government are not necessarily informed of such requests or their outcome. Even when we have been made aware of requests, the information required could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Laboratories
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many whole-time equivalent staff are currently employed at(a) the Warren Spring Laboratory, (b) the National Engineering Laboratory and (c) the National Physical Laboratory; how many were employed at each laboratory on 31 March 1992 and 31 March 1993; and how many he plans to employ on 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The numbers for 31 March 1992 and 1993 and currently are:

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1993

  Current

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  321·0

  278·0

  224·5

  National Engineering Laboratory

  388·5

  363·5

  338·0

  National Physical Laboratory

  807·5

  770·0

  748·0

  Warren Spring Laboratory will be closing on 31 March to be replaced by the new National Environmental Technology Centre, to which a substantial number of its staff will be transferring.

  I am currently considering future plans for the other laboratories.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff at Warren Spring he presently proposes to transfer to AEA Technology; and which sections, teams or project groups have been named for closure since 1 April.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The House is aware that the National Environmental Technology Centre is being created in south Oxfordshire by the bringing together of Warren Spring Laboratory with the environmental technology services of the Atomic Energy Authority. This merger of the country's two major environmental research laboratories will form a single powerful centre of excellence in this field. The merger will take place on 1 April 1994. The turnover of the NETC will be about £20 million to £25 million, compared with £13.5 million at Warren Spring in 1992–93.

  The merger will take place in most of the business centres of Warren Spring, accounting for 87 per cent. of the laboratory's work in 1992–93. All the scientific staff

  423
  working in those business centres have been offered the opportunity to transfer. The numbers finally deciding to transfer from Warren Spring will depend on individual choice, but about 100 are expected to do so.

  The business centres which the AEA has decided not to transfer, and which will therefore close on or before 1 April 1994, are:

  Heavy Gas Dispersion,

  Environmental Advisory Unit

  Thermal Processing

  Chemical Analysis—quality assurance, inorganic analysis, dispersant evaluation

  Effluent treatment—mineral processing

  Information systems

  Ship Safety

  Process Technology—solid/liquid separation

  These account for 38 scientific staff. Support activities which will also close are:

  Directorate and senior management team

  Central services

  Finance

  Personnel

  Technical services

  Publications, photography and library.

  Technology Transfer
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the DTI funding mechanisms for technology transfer; and when he expects such mechanisms to be in place.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government received around 800 representations during the preparation of the White Paper on Science and Technology—"Realising our Potential—A Strategy for Science Engineering and Technology" Cm. 2250. Following publication, I am using seminars to consult industry on the implementation of the new policies.

  These consultations are showing that in addition to the range of current technology transfer initiatives, there is scope for further activity, particularly involved business links to provide local delivery. Consultations are in progress on those new ideas, and announcements for pilots are likely in 1994.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much he expects his Department to spend on research and development for each year from 1993 to 1997;

  (2) how much his Department spent on research and development in each year since 1980.

  .Mr. Heseltine
  The Department of Trade and Industry's expenditure on research and development is recorded in the annual review of Government-funded research and development, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The first such review, published in 1983, shows expenditure from 1977–78 onwards. The 1993 review shows planned expenditure up to 1995–96. Revised figures, including plans for 1996–97, will be prepared in light of this year's public expenditure survey and published in the 1994 "Forward Look of Science and Technology", which replaces the annual review.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many trading standards officers there are in non-metropolitan areas of England.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are about 796 qualified trading standards officers in post in England local authorities other than the London and Metropolitan boroughs.

  Peat
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funds have been made available to support research into the development and promotion of alternatives to peat; and if he will list the companies, institutes and research establishments which have been supported by these funds.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department promotes the recyling of waste material, including the composting of its degradable fraction, and has recently funded two projects under DEMOS, the DTI's environmental management options scheme, providing:

  (i) A grant of over £400,000 to South West Water, Devon Waste Management and Focsa Services (UK) Ltd., to demonstrate the feasibility of co-composting of Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge.

  (ii) A grant of over £150,000 to Motherwell Bridge Envirotec, Environmental Energy and Newcastle university to demonstrate an anaerobic digestion plant for the treatment of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste.

  My Department is also seeking to overcome a major obstacle to increased use of composted materials—the lack of recognised standards—by funding a specialist from Warren Spring laboratory to participate in CEN work to develop European standards for soil conditioners arid growing media.

  All this work has the potential to result in the development of composted materials which could serve as alternatives to peat.

  I should add that the Department of the Environment has the lead on research into composting techniques in the context of waste management, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also supports some research into growing media.

  Textiles
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy with regard to the multi-fibre arrangement in the event of the Uruguay round of the GATT not achieving adequate cuts in the high tariff and non-tariff barriers faced by British textile and clothing manufacturers in United Kingdom export markets in the third world and in the emerging economies of the developing world.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government are working for a balanced outcome to the Uruguay round negotiations as they affect the textile and clothing sector. We have been pressing in particular for a satisfactory outcome reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers as part of an overall settlement including the phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement and strengthened GATT rules and disciplines.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department holds on the trading activities of International Signal and Control from 1971 to its purchase by Ferranti in 1987.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department does not monitor the commercial operations of international organisations, and the information it holds on the trading activities of International Signal and Control Group plc prior to its purchase by Ferranti plc in 1987 is that generally addressed to Ferranti shareholders in a circular dated 29 September 1989 from the chairman of that company.

  Ferranti subsequently provided additional information direct to the Serious Fraud Office, which conducted an investigation into the matters of concern outlined by the company.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what communication his Department has had with the office of defence trade control at the United States state department in regard to the collapse of Ferranti.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department took any action to block a bid by Thomson CSF for the Ferranti company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Neither my Department, nor the Office of Fair Trading, was made aware of any proposal by Thomson CSF to bid for Ferranti International.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table revising and updating table 2, "Large Fast Growing Sectors", in the world market economies published in 1989 in his Department's report on manufacturing into the late 1990s.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is in the table.

  Large fast growing commodity groups in the world market economies1

  $ billion

  Per cent. change

  Percentage UK share of world market2

  SITC

  1990

  1984–90

  1984

  1990

  761 Television receivers

  17

  250·4

  7·2

  6·7

  898 Musical instruments, pts

  19

  221·6

  10·7

  9·7

  896 Works of art etc

  14

  217·2

  15·9

  25·0

  893 Articles of plastic nes

  29

  215·8

  7·6

  8·6

  726 Printing, bookbinding, machinery, pts

  10

  199·3

  10·8

  10·4

  752 Automatic data processing equipment

  73

  194·4

  12·6

  10·4

  714 Engines and motors nes

  22

  184·

  17·7

  15·3

  736 Metalworking machine-tools

  21

  183·4

  5·9

  6·3

  894 Toys, sporting goods, etc

  27

  181·9

  6·7

  6·3

  792 Aircraft etc

  54

  180·5

  8·8

  8·6

  831 Travel goods, handbags

  10

  171·2

  6·0

  5·6

  845 Outerwear knit nonelastic

  26

  170·6

  6·1

  6·4

  034 Fish, fresh, chilled frozen

  16

  170·4

  4·9

  3·7

  821 Furniture, parts thereof

  31

  170·3

  7·0

  6·7

  426

  $ billion

  Per cent. change

  Percentage UK share of world market2

  SITC

  1990

  1984–90

  1984

  1990

  744 Mechanical handling equ

  21

  168·1

  6·5

  7·7

  872 Medical instruments nes

  10

  162·9

  6·9

  6·0

  843 Women's outerwear nonknit

  32

  159·5

  5·2

  6·1

  741 Heating, cooling equipment

  21

  156·7

  5·1

  5·4

  759 Office, ADP mch pts, acces

  46

  156·1

  10·6

  11·8

  533 Pigments, paints, etc

  11

  154·1

  4·9

  6·0

  764 Telecom, equipment, pts, acc nes

  54

  151·8

  5·0

  6·5

  842 Men's outerwear not knit

  20

  144·1

  7·5

  6·1

  773 Electrical distributing equipment

  14

  141·6

  4·7

  5·7

  745 Nonelec machinery, tools nes

  15

  136·6

  7·4

  7·4

  772 Switchgear etc, parts nes

  36

  135·9

  6·4

  6·4

  642 Paper, etc. precut, arts of

  13

  135·2

  8·4

  9·6

  541 Medicinal, pharmaceutical product

  35

  132·9

  4·8

  5·9

  1 Based on world imports; only commodity groups where import value exceeds $10 billion have been included.

  2 United Kingdom imports as a percentage share of world imports.

  Source: United Nations International Trade Statistics Yearbook vol 2, 1988 and 1990.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the deregulation of industry, with particular reference to the manufacture of fireworks.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All regulations having an impact on business are under review as part of a Government-wide initiative to minimise regulatory burdens on business whilst maintaining effective and appropriate safeguards. The manufacture of fireworks is covered by the Explosives Act 1875, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I understand that the Act is currently under review by the Health and Safety Executive, in consultation with interested parties.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list, by region,(a) the successful bids and their value and (b) the unsuccessful bids for Konver funding.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: Lists of both successful and unsuccessful applicants for Konver, European regional development fund and European social fund grants have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The total number of applications was 289. Following the amalgamation of certain projects the total number of applications assessed was 263.

  Data Rights
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to introduce data rights for research in the United Kingdom, equivalent to those made available by NASA and the Government of Japan.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: In relation to earth observation satellites, access for researchers at reasonable cost to data resulting from European Space Agency missions is guaranteed by the agency, of which the United Kingdom is a member. In addition, the British National Space Centre is participating in international negotiations to provide for the exchange of data for research purposes between European and non-European missions.

  Post Office Finance
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the difference between the planned external finance requirements of the Post Office for 1994–95 in the Financial Statement and Budget report of the previously announced figure; and what part of it represents proceeds from the proposed sale of Parcelforce as mentioned in paragraph 5.42 of the Financial Statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The 1994–95 external financing limit for the Post Office was set at –£186 million in the 1992 autumn statement. This figure has been revised to –£226 million in the 1993 "Financial Statement and Budget Report." None of this increase represents proceeds from the proposed sale of Parcelforce.

AGRICULTURE

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in east Sussex, west Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

  County

  Area (hectares)

  East Sussex

  2,964

  Hampshire

  34,276

  Isle of Wight

  1,454

  West Sussex

  4,054

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece 428
  of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Cleveland, Durham and Northumberland (a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and whether she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Cleveland, Durham and Northumberland:

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Cleveland

  493

  Durham

  3,260

  Northumberland

  59,249

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and whether she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk:

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Cambridgeshire

  682

  Essex

  775

  Norfolk

  14,330

  Suffolk

  9,820

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset.

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Avon

  324

  Cornwall

  3,290

  Devon

  10,123

  Dorset

  7,030

  Somerset

  4,440

  429
  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested in the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bananas
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the dispute between Geest and Fyffes and Jamaican Producers regarding banana licences and transportation arrangements.

  Mr. Jack
  Under the new EC banana regime, which came into force on 1 July 1993, the issuing of licences to import bananas into the Community to companies who apply in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the Intervention Board executive agency. The board's officials have issued licences for the second half of this year entirely in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation 404/93 and Commission Regulations 1442/93 and 1443/93. The dispute over licences between Geest and Fyffes and Jamaica Producers is a commercial matter which it is for the companies themselves to resolve.

  Beef Premium Payments
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long farmers in(a) England and (b) Wales had to wait on average for payment of beef premium payments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The EC rules do not allow beef premium payments until 1 November, when a 60 per cent. advance can be made. In England, payments under the beef special premium scheme began in November, and by 8 December, some 40 per cent. of claimants had been paid advances. In Wales, advance payments are expected to begin by early January at the very latest. In both. England and Wales, advance payments under the suckler cow premium scheme are expected to start in January.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when farmers in south-east Cornwall can expect to receive the initial payment of their special beef premium; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The EC rules do not allow advance payments of beef special premium to be made before 1 November. By 8 December, some 40 per cent. of claimants in England had been paid advances. In Devon and Cornwall, the proportion of claimants paid by 8 December was 43 per cent. which was more than the average. Remaining claimants will be paid as quickly as possible.