Sitting of 15 December 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    European Community Enlargement
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the enlargement of the European Community.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Good progress has been made in negotiations with the four EFTAn applicants for membership—Norway, Sweden, Austria and Finland. But some difficult issues remain to be settled, particularly in the areas of agriculture and regional policy. Decisive progress is needed in the next few months if we are to meet the target of entry into the Community by those four states by 1 January 1995.
    Mr. Evans: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Given the gathering clouds in the east and in Russia, and given the imperative of extending the blessings of liberty, free trade and open markets to as wide a Europe as possible, will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are possibly at last succeeding in persuading an increasing number of our European partners of the benefits of an expansion of the European Community?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I confirm that it has always been a British priority to open our doors to applicants from all European states, provided that they can fulfil the requirements and obligations of membership. That is why we were pleased that recent European Council conclusions have endorsed the possibility of eventual membership by states, including those from central and eastern Europe in due course.
    Mr. Enright: The Minister did not mention Cyprus among the applicants. Cyprus has received initially a favourable response from both the Council and Commission. But, in reverist mode, will the Minister think for one moment of how he will get rid of the Turkish occupying army if Cyprus is accepted into the Community?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Cypriot application for membership has received favourable consideration, although it is not imminent and is certainly not being considered in the same time scale as the states that I mentioned in my first answer. I should also remind him that the partition of the island is not a prohibition on eventual accession. That matter is to be reconsidered in 1995.
    Mr. Streeter: I welcome my hon. Friend's earlier comments about enlargement. Will he give a view about the prospects of success of the application of Malta to become a member of the European Union?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we welcome the prospect of accession by Malta. Preliminary discussions are already under way. Certain adjustments will be needed in the economy of Malta so that it can take on the responsibilities of membership, but we recognise that there are important historic connections between this country and Malta, and, for that reason as well, we believe that Malta's eventual destiny lies in Europe.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Minister confirm that he sees no conflict between the concepts of widening and deepening in the Community?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Certainly not. We believe that a wider and larger European Community will also be a stronger one.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend will know that there will be a widespread welcome in this country for the remaining Scandinavian countries joining the European Community. Will he do all that he can to encourage the Community in due course to include the former Baltic states of the Soviet Union, particularly Estonia, which I visited a couple of months ago, and which is the most go-ahead of all the countries of the former Soviet Union?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That prospect is somewhat further away. I can confirm, however, that we wish to see a free trade area concluded with the Baltic states, including Estonia. That is part of the negotiations with the Scandinavian EFTA states, which already have substantial free trade with those other countries.
    Mr. Rogers: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) about Cyprus's application for membership of the European Community, I understand that on 20 December the Council of Ministers will consider a request from the republic of Cyprus to appoint a European Union monitor to the discussions between Cyprus and the occupied territory of northern Cyprus, which will be held in January under the aegis of the United Nations. Will the Government give a favourable response to that request and, in the Council of Ministers, ensure that a monitor is appointed?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We shall examine that proposal on its merits. The overriding need is to give a fair wind to the confidence-building measures that are being promoted by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Provided that the appointment of an EC observer does not conflict with those aims, we shall give it favourable consideration.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend seen the opinion polls in Scandinavian countries, which unfortunately show

    1055
    a decline in the popularity of the view that they should enter the European Community? I hope that I am not being reverist by suggesting—[Interruption.] I hope that I am not talking balderdash or being reverist by suggesting that the European Commission should be working to demonstrate that the European Community—
    Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Points of order will be taken after questions and the statements. I shall call the hon. Gentleman then.
    Mr. Bruce: The European Commission should be working to ensure that people realise that the Community can be to the advantage of the Scandinavian countries.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Each state must comply with and approve the eventual agreement in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. We believe that the kind of European Union that we are building is agreeable and attractive to the Scandinavian states. We hope that they will find a way to accede in the time scale that I have outlined.

    Palestine National Authority
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Palestine National Authority; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I held substantive talks with Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw him today. Yesterday, we discussed the implementation of the 13 September Israel/PLO agreement, to which we are giving both political and economic support.
    Mr. Galloway: Will the Secretary of State accept my —and I believe the whole House's—congratulations on his and the Prime Minister's meetings yesterday and today with the Chairman of the Palestine National Authority and on at long last recognising the leadership of the Palestinian people? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is a failure, on 22 December, to implement the accord signed in Washington, as there was on 13 December, there is a grave risk of the area disintegrating into even further and greater chaos? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that fear to the appropriate quarters at this critical juncture?
    Might we be able to afford to the Palestinian people something that they greatly admire—the tradition of public service and an impartial civil service—in which we, at least until recently, gloried in this country? Will he make that expertise available to the Palestinians in the period ahead?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, it is important that the agreement should be honoured. Yes, we will give what help we can. For example, we have offered to train senior policemen in the new Palestinian force and Chairman Arafat accepted that offer yesterday.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way in which a viable peace will be achieved in the long term is if the two sides reach an accommodation
    1056
    between themselves? Outsiders can be helpful and supportive, but it must be for the Palestinians and Israelis to reach an agreement with which they can both live.
    Mr. Hurd: That is exactly right, and that is why it is such a breakthrough that they are discussing those matters face to face, in detail.
    Mr. Janner: May I join in welcoming the visit of Chairman Arafat, whom I shall see later this afternoon with a Jewish delegation? Will the Secretary of State do everything in his power to help the parties to promote the peace process, first, by helping the Palestinians economically and, secondly, by recognising the deep and real sensitivities of the Israeli people for the security of their land?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for joining me and Chairman Arafat at lunch yesterday, thus lending fresh respectability to the occasion.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right. There are two issues that Chairman Arafat explained to us as points of difficulty. One is the boundaries of the new Jericho—part of the agreement—and the second is who should control the border points on the Jordanian and Egyptian borders. Those are difficult matters; they are difficult for Israel and they are difficult for the Palestinians. We have some ideas on how they might be resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was quite right; in the end, the two have to resolve the difficulties together. It is in the interests of both that they should do so.
    Mr. Fabricant: Was my right hon. Friend able to raise with Mr. Arafat the question of the Israeli hostages who are being held by terrorist groups? I am thinking in particular of people such as Ron Arad.
    Mr. Hurd: We raised that matter in various places and at various times when we thought that it would be helpful to do so. My hon. Friend is right: there is also the matter of the many Palestinians still held in Israel, which is one of the matters that the two sides are discussing. I hope to go to Israel, to the occupied territories and to Jordan during the Christmas recess. I will do so in the spirit that my hon. Friend suggested—trying to be helpful when we can on practical matters of technical assistance and judging for myself how things are going.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary's comments are welcome, as was the visit of Mr. Arafat to Britain yesterday and today. In his discussions, Chairman Arafat raised with the right hon. Gentleman, as he did with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself, the question of an international presence in the West Bank and the Gaza area—the occupied territories—to help the transition. Has the right hon. Gentleman formed a view of that proposal? Does he believe that it could make a positive contribution to the smooth transition?
    The Palestinians have proposed that they should be given financial assistance to help the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction to engage British and European economists and industrial expertise to guide and advise them in the redevelopment and reconstruction of the occupied territories. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government make a positive response, as the amounts of money involved are relatively modest?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's presence at the lunch yesterday put its respectability beyond doubt.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, Chairman Arafat has raised the possibility of international observers helping to deal with the frontier question—the problem of border controls, which I mentioned—alongside Israelis and Palestinians. No formal proposition has been made, because there is no agreement between the two sides on that point, but I certainly do not exclude our participating in such an effort, which would be on only a modest scale, if that proves to be necessary.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, we need to look at all the ideas so that we can help, with the things that we do well, the Palestinians in their new needs. I have mentioned police training, which is one thing, and economic advice would be another. The European Community, to which, of course, we contribute 16 per cent. of the 20 mecu voted for the first year to help the Palestinians, has been asked to keep the universities going. That is very important, and a large part of that European money to which we contribute will go for that purpose.

    South Africa
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about progress towards democracy in South Africa.
    Mr. Hurd: We fully support the transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa, and we keep in close contact with the main political leaders. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held talks with President de Klerk on 8 December, and with Mr. Nelson Mandela on 12 October. My right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey visited South Africa last week and met leaders of all the main parties.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to congratulate Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk on being presented with the Nobel peace prize at the weekend? Will he further congratulate them on managing to reach an agreement on a constitutional settlement to end apartheid?
    Does the Secretary of State agree that there are no grounds for complacency between now and next April's elections? Will he use whatever influence he has to try to persuade people such as Chief Buthelezi to accept the constitutional settlement? Would not that undoubtedly help to bring about a peaceful transition towards a democracy based on one person, one vote in a unified South Africa?
    Mr. Hurd: The transitional executive council, as the hon. Gentleman certainly will know, held its first meeting in Cape Town on 7 December, and Lady Chalker attended it. That was a big step forward, and the next major step will be the holding of the first democratic elections on 27 April next year.
    The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that those who have held themselves aloof from the process—I think particularly of Inkatha—should find a way to associate themselves with it. No one is asking them to eat words or to go back on stands that they have taken. It should be possible, and it is highly desirable, for all those parties who have held aloof for one reason or another to find a way to participate.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progress towards democracy in South Africa has been much encouraged by sporting contacts between South Africa and ourselves and the rest of the world? In that context, will he send a message of best wishes to the England A cricket eleven, which has had a highly successful tour, despite certain medical problems? It has already played a game in Alexandra, a South African township, and is to play another tomorrow in Port Elizabeth. It is doing a splendid job, and I am sure that it would be grateful if my right hon. Friend sent his encouragement.
    Mr. Hurd: The team might be grateful, and I am certainly glad to do so. I went to Alexandra last year with cricket equipment for a local team playing on a ground that it was putting together. I am glad to hear that Alexandra is continuing its devotion to cricket.

    Libya
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Libyan Government directly or indirectly about Libyan citizens held in United Kingdom prisons.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): There have been no such discussions.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, in pressing the Libyan Government to hand over people who are accused of atrocities in this country, it is important to show that Libyan nationals have received justice in this country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the case of Hosni Farhat, who was convicted of attempted murder? Much of the evidence that was given at his trial is now considered to be suspect and, in addition, he received a sentence that reflected the political situation between Britain and Libya at the time, rather than the severity of the offences that he committed. He was denied the opportunity to appear at his appeal or to be legally represented.
    Is not it important that such cases are investigated speedily by the British Government and that any injustice is put right before representations are made to the Libyan Government to bring other people before the British courts?
    Mr. Hogg: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I should not like to suggest that the offences committed were minor. This character was convicted on four counts of attempted murder and, not surprisingly, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1981. He subsequently appealed, but the Court of Appeal refused him leave to appeal against the conviction.
    I do not have a clue whether there are any grounds to doubt the validity of the conviction. The Court of Appeal thought otherwise, but if the hon. Gentleman has doubts I suggest that he raises them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Libya is one of the most offensive regimes in the world and that it ill behoves hon. Members to cast doubts on the fairness of British justice, which is much greater than that in most countries of the world?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree that I certainly would not want to live in Libya.

    Angola
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking through the international community to make the UNITA forces comply with the Angolan peace accords.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We have been active in the Security Council, bilaterally with the Angolan Government and UNITA.
    Mr. Pickthall: In view of the staggering number of deaths in Angola, estimated by the United Nations at 1,000 a day and by the Angolan Government at approximately 5 per cent. of the total population, will the Foreign Office ensure that our representatives at the United Nations Security Council meeting later today urge on the rest of the United Nations the necessity of the full implementation of the sanctions already in place and of a new package of sanctions? Does the Minister agree that UNITA has played cat and mouse with the United Nations for far too long and that the disaster that it is causing in that country warrants the strongest possible international action?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is perfectly true that there has been the most appalling suffering in Angola. The sanctions instituted in September have worked to a considerable extent. UNITA is now discussing matters and negotiating seriously. I believe that today's resolution will recognise that and, of course, will leave open the possibility of further sanctions should UNITA ever renege on the current negotiations.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of embololalia is talked about Angola, not least by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and that there are faults on both sides?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I suspect that that is always true in great disputes throughout the world.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister did not tell us what the Government will urge at the Security Council. Will they urge the application of full sanctions? Was anything done in the Lusaka talks to invalidate the results of last year's elections? Furthermore, what action are the Government taking to stop the supplies of arms and oil to UNITA by the South Africans and by the people from Zaire?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government's position will be to argue that the sanctions introduced in September and the mandate of the United Nations Angola verification mission—UNAVEM—should be continued. We hope that the United Nations special representatives and negotiators will proceed with the negotiation successfully. We understand that some agreement has been reached between the parties, which remains to be implemented, but there will be a statement this afternoon or this evening from the United Nations Secretary-General.

    Iraq
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in representations over prisoners of war held in Iraq.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is an important issue and I have to concede that we have made jolly little progress. We raised the matter at every review of sanctions, most recently on 18 November. It is an important matter and we will continue to press it.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) on his success in bringing back the detainees from Iraq? Does he accept, however, that this is not the end of the matter? Three and a half years after the Gulf war, prisoners of war are still held in Iraq, including 625 Kuwaitis. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should not lift sanctions on Iraq until the detainees have been released?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). What he did was extraordinarily helpful; the families of the prisoners will be extremely grateful to him. My hon. Friend is also entirely right to highlight the plight of the 627 or so Kuwaiti detainees. She can be assured that we will raise their plight with the Iraqis on every possible occasion. It is an important element in our contacts with Iraq that that country should comply in every respect with the mandatory requirements of the Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that there are other prisoners of war in Iraq, including many Kurds and Shias? Is it not time that we should consider international action to prevent the terrible suffering that is caused by Saddam Hussein's relentless attacks on the Shias in the marshes?
    Mr. Hogg: There are a number of prisoners of war—Kurds, certainly; Shia from the marshes; and Iranians. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime do not continue to oppress their people. That is why we have no-fly zones in north and south Iraq. I should have some difficulty in telling the hon. Gentleman that there would be support within the Security Council for any more forward action in south Iraq.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in the GATT trade negotiations.
    Mr. Hurd: I believe that we are nearly there.
    Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that later today we can expect some exceptionally good news, on a day of exceptionally good news? Seldom in the course of human history can so few have lost so much sleep in the interests of so many. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that GATT is likely to bring practical benefits to every household in Britain, with sharp cuts in food prices and

    1061
    upwards of 400,000 new jobs over the next 10 years? When does my right hon. Friend plan to uncork the champagne?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on that matter tomorrow. I have just returned from Brussels, where I heard Sir Leon Brittan—who handled the negotiations with great skill—report to the European Council. There are bound to be loose ends. As I left, there was still an argument or discussion in progress about Portuguese textiles. We have also been pressing for a better deal for our textiles. Such final pressures are inevitable, but I hope that it will be possible for Mr. Sutherland to announce in Geneva this evening that the Uruguay round has reached a successful conclusion, after seven years in which many successive British Ministers have worked extremely hard—when others had forgotten the issue—to help bring them to a successful conclusion.
    My hon. Friend is right in the example that he gave. As a big trading and manufacturing nation, and as a nation of consumers, Britain stands to gain enormously—perhaps as much as any other country—from the success that is just about within grasp.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that although the Uruguay round and GATT are in the interests of the United States and of the European Community, countries in the southern hemisphere will view the agreement as damaging? It is estimated that Africa will lose $2,600 million by the year 2002. What steps will be taken to assist the poorest countries, which will be damaged by that process?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that they will be damaged. I am familiar with the argument, but it is a myth. The winding down of the multi-fibre arrangement over a period of time will benefit new textile producers, and the opening up of the Japanese market after years of total closure will be of huge benefit to rice producers—and so on, across the board. It is not a zero-sum game in which some are bound to gain and some are bound to lose. World trade expands —and under the impetus of such an agreement, it will expand a great deal faster than it otherwise would.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Given that some products may have been taken out of the negotiations, what is the mechanism by which textiles, films or steel, for example, will be further pursued?
    Mr. Hurd: A number of matters will be further discussed including elements of financial services and maritime matters, on which agreement was not possible on this occasion. Rather than hold up the total agreement, those issues were taken out for the time being. Some are important to us. I asked Sir Leon Brittan today about civil aircraft, aero engines and financial services. The replies and clarifications that I received were reassuring and confirmed our general belief that, for this country, the agreement will be of substantial benefit.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: We understand that one of the cornerstones of the agreement will be a substantial reduction in agricultural subsidies. How long will the agriculture industry, under the terms of the agreement, be given to adjust to the new circumstances arising out of the
    1062
    agreement? Exactly when will we be given details of the agreement, and when will it be deposited in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter. The Prime Minister will make, I imagine, a fairly full statement tomorrow—that is to say, if the negotiations conclude in the way that we hope. Therefore I shall not answer the hon. Gentleman's question in detail, but I would say that it is common sense that there should be a wind-down in the total of exports of subsidised grain from Europe. It is difficult for farmers in some countries—perhaps in all countries—but I think that most hon. Members in the House believe that that is a movement towards common sense.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the restoration of peace in the former Yugoslavia as a result of the most recent conference in Geneva; if the issue of the Krajina has been discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: At their meeting with the parties in Geneva on 29 September, European Union Foreign Ministers emphasised the importance of a peace settlement. The subsequent peace talks have made some progress in clarifying positions. The European Council on 10 and 11 December agreed to maintain the pressure on the Serbs to make the further territorial concessions on the scale demanded by the Bosnian Government. The parties have discussed the situation in Croatia, where European Union Foreign Ministers have urged them to reach agreement on a ceasefire and confidence-building measures as a preliminary to a final settlement.
    Mr. Wareing: Has the Minister noticed early-day motion 119 on the order paper? It is signed by Members on both sides of the House, and it deplores Croatian army atrocities in Croatia against Serb Villagers, and indeed in Bosnia Herzegovina.
    Does the Minister realise that to many, many people in this country and elsewhere, it seems utterly ludicrous and far from even handed that there should be sanctions against Serbia, while at the same time the Croatian army, along With the HVO, is causing such turmoil, such as the destruction of the bridge at Mostar, and the atrocities that were committed in that area? What is the difference between Mostar and Sarajevo that we have sanctions against the Serbs but not against Croatia?
    Mr. Hogg: I am aware of evidence of serious atrocities committed by the Croat forces, both from within the regular army of Croatia and, indeed, from within the Bosnian Croat forces. We have raised those matters very forcefully with the Croat authorities and Ministers from the Croatian Government and we will continue to do so. I can conceive of circumstances in which the international community might well wish to impose sanctions. I think that if there were an upsurge of fighting in the Krajina as a result of Croatian action that might be a matter of very profound significance in this context. I do, however, think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to keep in mind—it is a point of distinction—that we rely on the Split access for the delivery of humanitarian supplies and the maintenance of UNPROFOR troops.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there are still Serbian forces present in Croatia, and that the prime responsibility for the killing and the carnage rests with Serbia? What will he do to impress upon President Milosevic that the creation of a greater Serbia by brutal aggression will never be recognised by the international community?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right when he draws attention to the presence of Serb forces in Croatia. It is extremely important that we establish the basis for settlement within the Krajinas, and one of the things that have been made absolutely plain to President Milosevic is that he cannot expect a relaxation of sanctions until a proper framework for a ceasefire and modus vivendi in the Krajina has been put in place.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister affirm that the international community has recognised Serbia as bearing the primary responsibility for the conflict and for the hideous atrocities in the former Yugoslavia? That affirmation has been made. It was made at the Edinburgh summit of the European Community; it has been made in numerous United Nations resolutions. Does he agree, therefore, that as long as Croatia continues to be divided, Bosnia continues to come under attack and Kosovo continues to be repressed, there can be no question of relaxing sanctions against the Serbian Government?
    Mr. Hogg: As to responsibility for the outbreak of the war, I certainly agree that the Government of Serbia are primarily responsible. If one were trying to determine who had committed the most atrocities one might have some difficulty. The plain truth is that all sides have committed atrocities and the barbarism has been shocking.
    As to forward policies, it is obviously essential that we promote an early settlement in Bosnia, not least because we otherwise face a calamity this winter. We must therefore ask ourselves and everyone else how best the Serbs—the Bosnian Serbs in particular—can be got to concede land. I can conceive of the relaxation of sanctions if there is a genuine ceasefire and implementation of the settlement and if the Serbs are prepared to deal with a modus vivendi in Krajina. That said, they will not be fully readmitted to the international community unless and until the problems of Kosovo and Vojvodina are also fully addressed.

    Soviet Bloc Countries
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations with former Soviet bloc countries.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our relations with the states are excellent.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend a little ashamed of the position when, having preached the benefits of free and open markets to those countries for so long, just when they most need our help the European Community is refusing free access for their goods to appease a few cosseted, subsidised and vested interests, such as the European steel industry? Are we not at the same time refusing cheap goods to our consumers and setting a bad example to those countries? Bearing in mind our example, it is not surprising that they are beginning to reject open market democracy.
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, that free markets and open access to them is of critical importance to underpinning the political reforms in the former Soviet Union and the central and eastern European countries. The British Government have been foremost in arguing the case for liberalising markets. We promoted the association agreements with the Visigrad group of countries and others and we are promoting the concept of free trade between the European Union, Russia and other countries from the former Soviet Union.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister may be aware that significant delegations from the former Warsaw pact states attended the recent assembly of Western European Union and that they were especially concerned to pursue security guarantees. Since their anxieties may well have increased in recent days, what meaningful and justifiable assurances or guarantees can western Europe offer?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those countries are concerned about security questions. We are not in a position to give guarantees of the article 5 type and nor is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or any of the states within it. We are planning to thicken the relationship between NATO and the countries within the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. In that context, the concept of partnership for peace initiated by the United States is extremely welcome. It will form the basis of the discussions to be held at the NATO summit in January and, broadly speaking, it was welcomed at the North Atlantic Co-operation Council meeting in Brussels about 10 days ago.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to assist in resolving the problems in Kashmir.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have repeatedly urged India and Pakistan to resolve their dispute through bilateral negotiation. I welcome the recent announcement that talks will be resumed early in the new year.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his careful reply and for his excellent speech during an Adjournment debate last week. Will he reconsider the position in Kashmir, where thousands of people have been slaughtered—probably tens of thousands during the past three to four years—as that is poisoning relations between two of our oldest allies, India and Pakistan? In addition, if the pressure for substantive early bilateral talks between those two countries fails, will my hon. Friend refer the matter to the United Nations, which first passed a resolution on the matter in 1947?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The best prospect at the moment is the resumption of talks, as my hon. Friend says. That is the way that we wish to be taken and we hope that there will be some progress. Of course, we have always made clear to the Indian Government our concern about human rights violations in Kashmir. There should be a dialogue and a political process in Kashmir, and an improvement in human rights there.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that lasting peace will come to Jammu and Kashmir only if any political settlement is acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the people living in that region? If that is the case, does he agree that representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be directly involved in any discussions on Kashmir that are convened between the Governments of India and Pakistan?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said to the hon. Gentleman during the Adjournment debate the other night, the participants in any discussions must be a matter for the two parties to decide. But certainly we have always urged and continue to urge on the Indian Government the need for a political process in Kashmir.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the two parties—the two Pakistani Foreign Ministers and the Indian Prime Minister—meet in January, they should make progress and that, above all, international observers should be allowed into Kashmir so that the rest of the world can see what is going on there?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right that people should go to Kashmir, and I have repeatedly urged that on representatives of the Indian Government. That is what we would certainly like to see.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister is right to welcome the news that India and Pakistan are to begin at Foreign Secretary level in January discussions on mutual problems, including the circumstances in Kashmir. Should not all friends of India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir welcome that small but positive step forward? Was not it good news that the siege and occupation of the Hazratbal mosque in Srinagar ended without bloodshed?
    We welcome the decision by the Government of the Republic of India to agree that Amnesty International should be given access to Kashmir to report on the circumstances that prevail there. Finally, I press on the Minister the need for the Government of India to be unequivocally told that the human and democratic rights of the people of Kashmir should be upheld in any settlement that may emerge.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is precisely because we respect the Indian Government as a democratic Government that we expect the rights of the people of Kashmir to be upheld and we are bringing pressure to bear on the Indian Government to recognise those important facts. I am glad that Amnesty International has recognised that there is positive progress in being able to go to India. I cannot confirm that Amnesty International has been invited to Kashmir, but it thinks that it will be able to visit the Punjab.

    Azerbaijan
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Azerbaijan.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our relations with Azerbaijan are in very good order.
    Mr. Colvin: What action are Her Majesty's Government taking to bring about the implementation of the four Security Council resolutions relating to the conflict involving Azerbaijan and Armenia? Can we expect an official visit from the President of Azerbaijan, President
    1066
    Aliev, next year? In view of the considerable business prospects for Britain in Azerbaijan—most notably, British Petroleum—and if the president is to visit this country, does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that there would be merit in a trade delegation to Azerbaijan under the Minister's leadership some time in the near future?
    Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that I have been to Azerbaijan twice. As my hon. Friend knows, we have an ambassador in Baku. The trade opportunities in Azerbaijan, especially in the oil sector, are large and important to us. My hon. Friend will know that an agreement has been signed and is currently awaiting the approval of the Parliament and the president.
    Yes, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to welcome President Aliev here early next year. As for the war involving Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia, I believe that the way forward lies through the Minsk process. We stand strongly and firmly behind that process.
    Mr. Hutton: In the light of recent developments in Russia, and the gains of the Fascist parties in the parliamentary elections, is it not important for the British Government to take immediate and urgent steps to promote full diplomatic representations in the new states of the former Soviet Union, including Azerbaijan? Is it not extraordinary that, several years after the break-up of the Soviet Union, we still do not have full diplomatic representation in many of those states?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my answer. I said that we had an ambassador in Baku. Perhaps he did not realise that Baku was the capital of Azerbaijan.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that when the people of Azerbaijan consider the example of Georgia, where we have seen direct Russian aggression, up to and including military intervention, they will be very careful before accepting any assurances given by the western powers at present?
    Mr. Hogg: The present state of Azerbaijan is a cause of considerable anxiety to us all. We judge that there are many Armenian troops there, and it is important that they start the process of withdrawal. The Minsk process offers that prospect through a staged timetable, and I would say to the Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh and from Armenia, and to the Azeri Government, that it is essential that they work by, with and through the Minsk process.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards further subsidiarity since the coming into force of the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Hurd: The Commission presented its subsidiarity report to the European Council on 10 December. We believe that it is a good start to a continuing process. The report calls for the repeal or simplification of some 25 per cent. of EC legislation. It covers 16 of the 24 items on the list that the French and British Governments submitted. Those include revision of the bathing and drinking water directives, the acquired rights directive, and the liability of service suppliers. One further item from the list has already been amended on those grounds, and the Commission is

    1067
    pursuing two others. All legislative proposals put forward by the Commission must now be tested against the requirements of subsidiarity.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that informative reply. Will he take the opportunity to confirm, as he has confirmed before, that the best guarantee of effective subsidiarity is probably federalism, as understood elsewhere in the Community, although the same definition is not understood in sections of this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore continue vigorously to apply subsidiarity within the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and confirm that the Conservative Members of the European Parliament have subscribed to a federal future, through their affiliation to the European People's party?
    Mr. Hurd: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to start dabbling in the different meanings of federalism. He will find himself in deeper water than he supposes, as his leader did in Brussels last week. The arrangements within the United Kingdom, as within any other member state, are a matter for the individual state. That was made clear in the Birmingham declaration last year.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the repeal or reform of 17 European measures at the Council last week is the first vindication of the Government's stance on subsidiarity during the Maastricht debate? Does he also agree that, provided that the common agricultural policy is adequately reformed, we can foresee a significant decrease in the competences of the European Community and the Commission, to the benefit of every country in Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I did not entirely blame the more sceptical of my right hon. and hon. Friends who, when subsidiarity was first discussed in the House, dismissed it as a mere phrase, but we are now turning it into a reality. This is the beginning of a process that will be extremely important. We said that it would be important, and we are making it important.
    Ms Quin: If the Government succeed in abandoning the bathing and drinking water directives, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what will happen to the green dowry of £1 billion that was given to water companies during privatisation specifically to bring our water up to EC quality standards? Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that the British public will not forgive a Government who put party dogma before water safety?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady and the Labour party miss the point. The purification and cleansing of this country's water are matters on which she and her colleagues can reasonably press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; that is fine. We do not think that the Commission in Brussels should lay down detailed regulations on such matters—regulations, which are, incidentally, out of date. What is new is that the Commission agrees with that point of view.

    Norway
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent visit of the Prime Minister to Norway.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, visited London privately from 14 to 17 November. She called on the Prime Minister during that time and discussion covered the European Community, Norwegian accession and Norway's whaling policy.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: During those talks, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorse Norway's role in the middle east process, and did he give similar support to Norway's peace initiative in Bosnia?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government have warmly congratulated the Norwegian Government on the mediatory role that they played in the Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough, and I further congratulated Mr. Holst, Norway's Foreign Minister when I was in Norway. That is only part of the way towards the comprehensive settlement that we still have to achieve.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Did the Minister raise with the Norwegian Prime Minister that country's whaling policy and condemn it for environmental reasons? Having said that, I have a great deal of affection for the Norwegian people because of the role that they played in the second world war and their great affinity with the Scottish nation.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We all feel the same way about the Norwegians. During the discussion between Mrs. Brundtland and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland described Norway's whaling policy. Our Prime Minister reiterated the British position and our support for EC legislation—the habitats directive and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulations, which amount to a de facto ban on commercial whaling. Anyone who wishes to see an end to Norwegian whaling should welcome the Norwegian accession to the Community in due course.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the Falkland Islands to discuss arrangements for agreements with Argentina relating to fishing and oil exploration.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I visited the Falkland Islands from 12 to 17 November. During my visit, I discussed fisheries and oil with the Falkland Islands Government and elected councillors.
    Mr. Shersby: In view of the decision of the Falklands Islands Government to pursue exploration for hydrocarbons in the area of the continental shelf, will my hon. Friend assure the House that as soon as the necessary legislation is forthcoming from the Falkland Islands, it will be followed by a prompt announcement on exclusive licensing arrangements?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We do not yet know whether there is any oil—at least, any oil of commercial quantities—in the Falklands waters. Two seismic surveys are under way and the results will be published in the early part of next year. Meanwhile, the Falkland Islands Government, assisted by us, are drawing up legislation with the prospect of a second exploration round, which may be announced next year.

    Middle East
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's support for the Washington accord on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is vital to keep up the momentum of the peace process in the middle east and that there is a need to get Syria and Jordan involved as soon as we can? I welcome the support that Britain will give to the Palestinian police force. Will we be equipping it as well?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. [Interruption.] I thought that that was a tribute to my answer, but I see that it is not. It is important to keep up the momentum. Yes, the Syrian-Israeli track must be supported. Yes, technical assistance will be given to the
    1070
    Palestinian police force. We will assist with training, and if we can find appropriate equipment, we will see if we can provide that as well.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister of State ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he visits Israel to impress on the Israeli Government the need to release the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners? When he discusses the issue with him, will he also offer to the Israelis, but especially to the Palestinians, some form of package to help to resettle the 10,000 prisoners in the occupied territories when they are released from Israeli gaols?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have heard that question. Yes, indeed, the release of the detainees is an important part of the confidence-building process and of making it plain to the Palestinian community that there are positive benefits to be gained from the accord. The settlement of the detainees and their families is an important point and Chairman Arafat acknowledged that when pressing for a substantial area of land to be handed to the Palestinians as part of the Jericho region.

Ireland (Joint Declaration)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister.
As the House will be aware, the Taoiseach and I agreed a joint declaration this morning. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I know that the whole House will wish to hear what lay behind this declaration and what it may mean for the future.
For the past 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered levels of violence that any civilised community would find intolerable. No community, and especially no part of the United Kingdom, should have to endure the murder and destruction that have afflicted the Province. That is why successive British Governments have sought to find a solution to these terrible problems. We must care as much about violence in Northern Ireland as about violence in any other part of the Union.
When the Taoiseach and I met at Downing street two years ago, we both agreed on the need to work together to try to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. We were both well aware of the pitfalls and dangers which have wrecked so many previous attempts, but we both knew that, after 25 years of killing, we had to make it a personal priority both to seek a permanent end to violence and to establish the basis for a comprehensive and lasting political settlement.
The declaration that we have agreed today shows the commitment of the two Governments for peace and democracy and against violence. Its objective is to set a framework for peace, a framework that reflects our responsibilities to both communities in a way that is fully compatible with the undertakings that we have both given and with the objectives of the talks process.
Copies of the joint declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I urge all hon. Members to read it carefully. It deserves careful study. It has required detailed and painstaking negotiations between the two Governments. It addresses the concerns of both sides of the Community and it is totally consistent with the principles that this Government have repeatedly confirmed to the House.
It may help the House if I set out the main elements of the declaration. I will, where possible, quote directly from the text of the declaration so that there can be no misunderstanding about what it says.
First, paragraph 2 expressly reaffirms the British Government's commitment to Northern Ireland's statutory constitutional guarantee. This guarantees that, as long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom, the Government will uphold their right to do so. That pledge is rock solid. That is set out most clearly also in paragraph 4, which reaffirms that the British Government will
"uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland."
Later in that paragraph, the British Government agree
"that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish."
1072
This is a crucial sentence, and one about which there has been much misleading speculation. So let me repeat that it says that a move to a united Ireland can take place only
"by agreement between the two parts respectively"
and
"on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South".
This fully protects the position of the majority in Northern Ireland, and means that change could come about only with their consent.
In line with previous undertakings, the British Government also reaffirm that if a future majority in Northern Ireland desired a united Ireland, we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring that about.
For his part, the Taoiseach accepts in paragraph 5 that
"it would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland in the absence of the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland."
Later in the same paragraph, he accepts that
"the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland".
Those are important commitments by the Taoiseach which I know will be widely welcomed by the House. The House will also welcome, in paragraph 7, the Taoiseach's confirmation that, in the event of an overall settlement of the talks process,
"the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland."
The joint declaration fully backs the three-strand talks process involving the main constitutional parties and the two Governments. It says that it is the two Governments' aim
"to foster agreement and reconciliation, leading to a new political framework founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island, and between these islands."
I believe that the passages that I have quoted, and the other language in the joint declaration, set out a clear framework under which differences can be negotiated and resolved exclusively by peaceful political means. But that can come about only if the men of violence end the killing and commit themselves to the democratic process. The joint declaration sets out the way in which this can be brought about.
Paragraph 10 says that both Governments
"reiterate that the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence. They confirm that, in these circumstances, democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process, are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead."
Let me make it plain on behalf of the British Government what that undertaking means. If there is a permanent end to violence, and if Sinn Fein commits itself to the democratic process, then we will be ready to enter into preliminary exploratory dialogue with it within three months. But, first, it must end violence for good.
I understand the fears and concerns of Unionists about the prospects of the British Government's entering into talks with Sinn Fein. This period has been a worrying and uncertain time for them. Although they have the primary interest in seeing an end to violence, they are rightly concerned lest this be achieved by selling out the fundamental constitutional principles which the

1073
Government have always upheld. If they fear that, then they should be reassured by this declaration. It reaffirms the constitutional guarantee in the clearest possible terms. The Taoiseach fully accepts the principle that any constitutional change could come about only with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland.
In summary, let me make it clear what is in the declaration and what is not. What is in the declaration is a renewed commitment by the British Government to Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee; an acknowledgement by the Taoiseach that a united Ireland could only be brought about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland; a willingness on the Taoiseach's part to make changes in the Irish constitution if an overall settlement can be reached; and a confirmation that if Sinn Fein renounces violence, it will be able to participate in future democratic discussions.
What is not in the declaration is any suggestion that the British Government should join the ranks of persuaders of the "value" or "legitimacy" of a united Ireland; that is not there. Nor is there any suggestion that the future status of Northern Ireland should be decided by a single act of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole; that is not there either. Nor is there any timetable for constitutional change, or any arrangement for joint authority over Northern Ireland. In sum, the declaration provides that it is, as it must be, for the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future.
All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will wish to study the document very carefully. I should like today to extend an offer to meet each of the parties regularly in the future, so that I can hear at first hand their concerns and ambitions, and can set out to them the British Government's position. If we can work together to quell ancient fears and suspicions, we can help to build a better future for Northern Ireland.
I have made it clear that if it renounces violence, the way is open to Sinn Fein to join in legitimate constitutional dialogue. That is a political route which it now has no excuse not to follow. That is the opportunity offered by this joint declaration—and it has been obtained without compromising any of the constitutional principles that this Government have consistently espoused. The onus is now on Sinn Fein to take advantage of that opportunity: I urge it to do so.
Mr. John Smith: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the joint declaration with enthusiasm. We fervently hope that it will be an important first step in a peace process that will lead to a new political settlement. It was necessary for the two Governments to take the lead, but it is vital that the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now take part in new discussions which the British Government should promote.
There was never any excuse for violence and terror on the part of any paramilitary organisation, but there is now an opportunity for both the permanent cessation of violence and the involvement of Sinn Fein in constitutional dialogue—provided that it is clear that the path of violence has been abandoned. We hope that the new opportunities that the declaration creates are seized by both traditions in Northern Ireland.
May I ask the Prime Minister two questions about the detail of the declaration? First, in paragraph 9, both Governments commit themselves to seeking to create institutions and structures which would enable the people
1074
of Ireland to work together in all areas of common interest. What kind of institution, and what areas of policy, have the Governments in mind?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as the "crucial sentence" in paragraph 4, about consent being
"freely and concurrently given, North and South".
Does that passage mean that a constitutional settlement arising from the talks process could be put to the people of Northern Ireland and those of the Republic in separate referendums on the same day?
Finally, may I endorse the appeal for an end to violence that the Prime Minister made in his concluding sentence? That must be the overwhelming desire of all the people of the British Isles—not least those in Northern Ireland—who have suffered the appalling violence of the past 25 years.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman both for his support for the joint declaration and for the continuation of talks which necessarily must proceed beside it. I believe that he is right that it is an opportunity to move from a violent path. It is an opportunity which no one can compel the men of violence to take. It is an opportunity which lies there and it is in their hands now to decide whether to take that opportunity and move towards a legitimate political path in future. I repeat: I hope that they will take that opportunity.
As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's two specific questions, the reference in paragraph 9 refers specifically to the three-stranded talks that are continuing at the present time, and there would be a large number of areas of common interest that are being identified in these talks that would be the subject of the structures referred to. So far as "freely and concurrently given" is concerned in terms of referendums, it certainly need not necessarily mean referendums on the same day. What it does mean is that that could be the situation. It is a matter for agreement in the talks and beyond, but they certainly need not necessarily be on the same day. It does imply that consent would need to be given separately north and south.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Has the Prime Minister noticed that this morning's statement is already being termed the Downing street declaration? Those of us who remember the earlier Downing street declaration in the time of the Government of Lord Wilson will remember that it was very specific in saying that the affairs of Northern Ireland were an internal matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. May I, in a constructive fashion, ask the Prime Minister to assure us that the drift from that position over the past 20 years will be halted under his premiership?
Whatever the eventual conclusions that one may draw from this rather tortuously worded statement with its many contradictions—I am referring to the statement, not the one just made by the Prime Minister—it appears to give some finality to the secret discussions that have destabilised the Province over recent months and which the Prime Minister has recognised just now. Does the Prime Minister share my expectation that we can now proceed to govern Northern Ireland in accordance with the wishes of 85 per cent. of the population—Protestant and Roman Catholic—who were greatly reassured by his remark to the House that
"The future constitutional position of the people of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine and for no one else to determine."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 29.]

1075
Finally, can the Prime Minister confirm that the joint declaration does not assert the value or legitimacy of achieving a united Ireland without majority consent; commit the people of Northern Ireland to joining a united Ireland against their democratic wishes, establish any form of joint authority over Northern Ireland, even by phasing; establish any joint mechanisms such as a permanent convention; or give Sinn Fein an immediate place at the talks table? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that the statement does not sideline the very valuable round of meetings between the parties convened by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)— which are now drawing towards a successful conclusion and which have been supported just now by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point at the end, I can confirm to him that the joint declaration does not assert the value of achieving a united Ireland; does not assert the legitimacy of a united Ireland in the absence of majority consent; does not either, for I think that it was implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said, commit the British Government to joining the ranks of the persuaders for a united Ireland. That is not the job of any British Government. It does not set any timetable for a united Ireland. It does not commit the people of Northern Ireland to join a united Ireland against their wishes, and it does not establish any arrangements for joint authority. I can confirm each of those points to the right hon. Gentleman.
As to the talks process undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, we anticipate and expect that they will continue and intensify. They are, I believe, becoming extremely valuable. We wish to proceed with them with all speed so that we can make further progress in the talks, which will run alongside the declaration that I have just set out to the House. As far as the consent principle is concerned, I reiterate again, because I wish no one to be in any doubt about this, that the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland lies now, and will continue to lie, within the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. For so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain within the Union, they will have the total and complete support of this Government in doing so.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the fact that the great difficulty and the field of controversy between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic—Northern Ireland being a member of the United Kingdom, although the document never once mentions the United Kingdom; that phrase has been entirely jettisoned from the document—involves articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution? Surely that is the very nub of the controversy. Why does this paper not even mention that?
A member of the Government said to me outside, "Oh, yes, but look at page 5." I have read the document carefully. In fact, I was able to receive from Dublin 24 hours before this document was available to other people all the information that I put in my letter—[Interruption.] It is very important that the Prime Minister should answer this question. He confirms that, in the event of an overall settlement, according to the Taoiseach,
1076
"the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland."
But it is not the principle of consent in Northern Ireland that has anything to do with articles 2 and 3; it is the principle of the territorial claim. However, that most important matter has not even been referred to.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what the statement on page 2 really does to the present position? Paragraph 4 states that the British Government agree
"that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish."
How is that different? Is it not different from the present situation when the entity of self-determination in Northern Ireland is the people of Northern Ireland? Why must the people of Northern Ireland now be linked with the Irish Republic on a question of their own right to remain within this United Kingdom?
Finally, may I say to the Prime Minister, that, as a public representative, I find it very offensive to be told that, in three months' time, if the IRA ceases its violence without any conditions for handing over its weapons or its bomb-making material or any of its military prowess, the IRA will be invited, as constitutional politicians, to sit down at the table. That goes to the very gut of the resentment of the people of Northern Ireland who have been slaughtered, butchered and murdered—[Interruption.] I do not mind what the hon. Gentleman says. His constituents have not been murdered or butchered. Perhaps he would like to sit down with the godfathers of the IRA and others who have done such things. What I have described goes to the gut of the people of Northern Ireland. They look on this as a sell-out act of treachery.
The Prime Minister: Let me touch on the last part first. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that some of his constituents have been murdered by terrorist activities over the past 25 years. I acknowledge that and I understand the misery that that must have caused to his constituents, their families and to the hon. Gentleman himself.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the agreement and the document is to make sure that, 25 years from now, his successor does not sit there saying that to the Prime Minister of the day. I wish to take action to make sure that there is no more bloodshed of that sort and no more coffins carried away week after week because politicians do not have the courage to sit down, address the problem and find a way through. I am prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman believes that I should not, he does not understand the responsibilities of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
On the hon. Gentleman's three questions, the declaration does not specifically refer to the United Kingdom; it specifically refers to the Union, which I think that the hon. Gentleman himself cares about. If he reads the document carefully, which, alas, he had not done when he made his remarks this morning and issued his letter, he will see that reference to the Union. As for articles 2 and 3, the quotation answers the hon. Gentleman's own question. That is clearly intended to refer to articles 2 and 3 in due course, and does so refer.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point on paragraph 4 about freely expressed consent, the specific point of

1077
paragraph 4 is to mention the freely expressed consent north and south respectively. It is saying to the hon. Gentleman that he, his constituents and all the other people in Northern Ireland have themselves, by their own actions, in their hands the future constitutional position of Ulster.
Mr. John Hume: May I express to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Reynolds my deep appreciation for the enormous amount of energy that they have put into trying to grasp the hope of peace—a hope which is shared by the masses of people on both islands? Having read the joint declaration, I think that it is one of the most comprehensive declarations that has been made about British-Irish relations in the past 70 years. My appeal to all sections of our people is to read the entire statement in full and to have no knee-jerk reactions but to study it carefully and in full before responding.
As the House will be aware, it has been the consistent position of my party that the British-Irish quarrel of old, the quarrel of sovereignty, has changed fundamentally in the evolution of the new interdependent and post-nationalist Europe of which we are members, but the legacy of that past is the deeply divided people. I welcome the fact that the declaration indentifies the problem as the deeply divided people of Ireland. I also welcome the fact that it recognises that that division can be healed only by agreement, and by an agreement that earns the allegiance and agreement of all our traditions and respects their diversity. I welcome also the fact that the Government have committed themselves to promoting such agreement and to encouraging such agreement, and whatever form that agreement takes, the Government will endorse.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the joint declaration is a challenge to all parties to come to the table in a totally peaceful atmosphere to begin the very difficult process —it will be a difficult process—of reaching agreement? If it takes place in a peaceful atmosphere, we will have much more chance of reaching such an agreement. My appeal to everyone who comes to that table is to come armed only with the strength of their convictions and not with any form of coercion or physical force.
Let us remember at this time that it is people who have rights, not territory, and that humanity transcends nationality. May the House share with me at this moment the hope of all our people that today will be the first major step on a road that will remove for ever the gun and the bomb from our small island of people.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive support. He is right; the declaration is a challenge to all parties and to all people Concerned with finding a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. I have to say to all parties that I think that we have no moral alternative but to take up that challenge and see whether we can find a satisfactory outcome. The hon. Gentleman has shown his personal commitment to a settlement in Northern Ireland for many years and, on that basis, his support today is doubly welcome.
Mr. Tom King: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the genuine and serious work that he has done in producing the declaration for the House? Is not it evident that no such declaration could give everybody
1078
everything that they wanted? Is not it evident also that there is nothing in the declaration that genuinely and seriously threatens anybody's vital interests in the matter?
Is not there a heavy responsibility on all hon. Members, including the elected Members in Northern Ireland, not to react in a way which could destroy the best opportunity for peace that we have seen since the trouble began? Is not the message from the House—we hope that it will be repeated later from the Dail Eireann—to those who have been responsible for violence that, because there is now a joint offer from both Governments of access to the democratic process, violence should cease immediately?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He speaks, of course, with the experience of having been a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is right that this is a balanced document which now offers opportunities that were not there before. I share my right hon. Friend's hope that those opportunities will be taken up.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Prime Minister note that he has our sincere and heartfelt good will in all his efforts and in the personal commitment which he is devoting to the task? Does he note also that we welcome the concurrent referendum possibility and the emphasis on human rights in the Taoiseach's own statement?
Is not the real question for the terrorists? Why should anybody else die and why should any more families be torn apart when it is possible to seek change without obstacle by a peaceful process, and when there are guarantees, which are underwritten by both Governments, that those changes cannot be enforced against the will of the majority in the north of Ireland?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is now no justification whatever for terrorism. There is now a clear and identifiable alternative for those people who seriously wish to engage in discussions in Northern Ireland. If terrorism were to continue after the statement and after the declaration, with the support that that has been given, it will be clearly understood by everyone that those people who engage in terrorism do not in any way genuinely seek a settlement, but simply wish to inflict murder and terror continuously.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: May I ask my right hon. Friend to be encouraged by the fact that the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body met in London today, and British and Irish Members of Parliament alike asked me on their behalf to welcome the joint declaration and to give it their support?
May I further ask my right hon. Friend to repeat that the declaration is a framework for peace that represents in many ways an opportunity for a new beginning? Will my right hon. Friend, together with the Irish Taoiseach, continue with all of his strength in his historic work, the end of which can mean only the peace which we all want?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The declaration certainly is a framework for peace. It is an opportunity, but whether that opportunity is taken does not lie in my hands or in the hands of the Irish Prime Minister. It lies in the hands of the people who have bombed and killed for so long. It is they who must come under pressure to make sure that the violence ends.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: May I, as someone whose constituency suffered from the bombers, ask the Prime Minister to accept that now is the time to give peace a chance? Will he also accept that if anybody involved fails to take that chance, they will never be forgiven?
It is time for all paramilitaries to lay down their arms. If they do, will not that be a fitting memorial, not only to the two small boys who lost their lives in Warrington, but to all who have lost their lives needlessly because of the actions of the people of violence? Let us hope that the words that have been spoken today will be heeded and that peace comes at last. Is not that what is needed if we are to avoid debates about violence in the future?
The Prime Minister: I cannot improve on what the hon. Gentleman said; I simply endorse it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend ardently wish that people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom? Otherwise, is there not a danger that people will say that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is careless with regard to the integrity of the United Kingdom? In that case, would it be inconceivable that anybody could have said that without the events of the past 25 years?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend looks at the joint declaration and at the words I set out so clearly at the last general election, he need have no doubt about my views on the Union; they are well known and on the record. I have gone to great trouble to ensure that the constitutional guarantee is firmly enshrined in the joint declaration, so that there can be no doubt that those people who care about the Union—and we are primarily concerned about the people in Northern Ireland who care about the Union—shall have it within their own hands, with the full support of the Government, to remain within the Union for so long as that is their wish.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that so strong is the desire for peace that the overwhelming majority of people in this country have long favoured talks among all the parties concerned? Will he confirm that a round table conference on that basis offers a better hope of a durable peace than simply talks between two Prime Ministers, neither of whom has been responsible for the violence? Would I be right in assuming that the significance of what he said today about the future of the island of Ireland being in the hands of the Irish people is that the British Government are no longer laying claim to an interest in the maintenance of the Union if the people of the north are ready to seek alternative arrangements? Is not that an important statement which ought to be underlined, clarified and emphasised in order to end the violence?
The Prime Minister: On the first point, talks between the two Governments have a place and the joint declaration is the outcome of those discussions. It lies alongside the main talks process with all the consitutional parties, who must play their part in determining what happens, as they are most directly concerned. Self-evidently, that is the best way to proceed. As far as the Union is concerned, I reiterate the points I made a moment ago; my views about the Union are well known. I said some time ago at the election that it would not be appropriate for any Government—I was talking about Scotland—to hold Scotland within the United Kingdom if a majority of its
1080
people wanted independence. The same must apply to the people of Northern Ireland. That does not exclude the fact that I have my own personal views; it illustrates the fact that, ultimately, it must be for the people themselves to determine.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: While warmly welcoming the joint declaration as a potential positive way forward, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that, during the weeks it was prepared, violence continued in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that there is no let-up in the hunt for those that perpetrated terrorism?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend takes a particular interest in Northern Ireland as chairman of the committee particularly concerned with Northern Ireland. I give him the categorical assurance that there will be no let-up in the security action against terrorists. The co-operation with the Gardai and the security forces in the north is today at a more comprehensive level that we have ever known.
Mr. John D. Taylor: As I almost lost my life at the hands of IRA terrorism, I fully understand the message inherent in today's declaration and to whom it is directed. Obviously there is much emphasis on Irish nationalist aspirations. However, the Prime Minister will know that 95 per cent. of people in my constituency are more interested in British aspirations. Although he has given some assurances today and specifically referred to paragraph 2 of the joint declaration which states that both Prime Ministers reaffirm
"Northern Ireland's statutory constitutional guarantee",
the trouble is that both Prime Ministers interpret differently what Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee really is. Therefore, with the purpose of giving confidence to the British people of my constituency, will the Prime Minister assure us, first, that the declaration in no way weakens Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom and, secondly, that it in no way gives Dublin any further role in the internal affairs or administration of Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: First, the whole House knows that the right hon. Gentleman was on one occasion very badly wounded by the IRA, and that he showed bravery then and subsequently. I am grateful for what he said. I give him both the assurances that he seeks. The declaration in no way weakens the constitutional guarantee that was first set out in the Northern Ireland Constitutional Act 1973. There is no weakening of that constitutional guarantee and nothing agreed today in the joint declaration gives the Government of the Republic of Ireland any additional say in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no talks with Sinn Fein until the terrorists, the IRA, hand over not only all the guns, ammunition and explosives that they have in Northern Ireland, but the material that they have in the Irish Republic?
The Prime Minister: It may be rather difficult in practice to find out precisely where it is and who has it; that is the practical difficulty that we face. We have said, beyond any doubt, that there must be the clearest possible public renunciation of violence and then a decontamination period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both sides."]—so that it is clear

1081
that that renunciation of violence will be held and there will be no violence. Then one can determine whether Sinn Fein can enter into discussions.
Hon. Members: Both sides.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Prime Minister will be aware that, in Dail Eireann today, there will be a similar reaction to the joint declaration. I welcome that, as I welcome the reception that it has received in the House. Does the Prime Minister accept that the intrinsic value will be recognised only if the same acceptance is gained where it counts—in places like my constituency in west Belfast, on the Shankill road and in the districts which have been beset by the violence of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitary groupings?
The Prime Minister said in his statement that the British Government's role will be to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement among all the people who inhabit the island. Does he include in that the further persuasion of those in the IRA who are carrying out violence? He has recognised that there are channels for achieving that. A logical conclusion of that part of his statement must be to pursue that type of persuasion with those people, to try to ensure an end to violence.
I am consistently impressed by the reassurances that the Prime Minister gives to Unionists in the House. Those of us of a nationalist persuasion believe in pursuing our objectives by peaceful democratic means. When the Prime Minister speaks about the north of Ireland, he should recognise that 44 per cent. of the population follow that view and are entitled to some prime ministerial persuasion and reassurance at some time.
The Prime Minister: I do not think that there has been any occasion when I have suggested that everyone who held nationalist aspirations was inclined to pursue them in a violent manner. That is certainly not my view. The IRA has pursued its activities in a wholly unsatisfactory and brutal manner. That patently does not apply to every nationalist and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have thought that any hon. Member could conceivably think that it did. As for persuasion, it is not in my mind to offer concessions to people. What we have to say to all parties is now said clearly and in the open. They know what lies there; they know what opportunity awaits if they are prepared permanently to renounce violence. That is what lies there and there is nothing further to be offered.
Mr. Michael Mates: Now that the brave efforts of both Prime Ministers and of the Ministers and officials, who worked so hard, have brought the declaration to a successful conclusion, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest cause for hope and satisfaction is that although there has never been the slightest excuse for violence, killing and bombing, if that course is pursued by the terrorists it will only show that they are not the slightest bit interested in any part of the democratic process? Has my right hon. Friend further agreed with the Taoiseach that if violence continues, both Governments, working together, will make concerted efforts to do whatever must be done to defeat the terrorists?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with special knowledge of Northern Ireland. He is absolutely
1082
right to say that there is no conceivable excuse for a continuation of violence. If it were to continue, I do not have a shred of doubt that we would continue to receive good and enhanced co-operation from the Government of the Republic of Ireland in tracking down those engaged in terrorism.
Mr. David Winnick: Do not we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) whose dedicated work for peace should be appreciated by all? Many attacked him, and I hope that they will realise now what he set out to achieve. Would it be useful to let friendly western democracies know what has been agreed between Ireland and the United Kingdom—not least the United States, where there seems to be some misunderstanding of the long and justified campaign waged by this country against terrorism? Should not the people of western Europe know and understand that the joint declaration has the overwhelming support of the people of Ireland and Britain and that continuing terrorism from either side has no support from the people whom the terrorists claim to represent?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to add the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle. I have paid tribute to him in the past for the work that he pursued for so many years, and I am glad to reiterate it today.
I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in respect of the United States and Europe. I believe that there will be overwhelming support for the proposals set out in the joint declaration. We must hope that that transmits itself to those people who have the power to stop the killing, and that they choose to do so.
Mr. George Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whether or not this welcome declaration leads to an end to violence, it finally strips away the remotest pretext for violence and for international sympathy or support for violence? It also broadens the political base for the repression of violence from whatever quarter, should it continue.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touched on a most important point when he said that the declaration strips away any pretext for tangible support. That is true within the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and in respect of the tangible support that has come from other sources from time to time.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Although there is widespread hope that today's declaration will form the basis of a peaceful settlement, does the Prime Minister agree that much remains to be done to ensure a lasting peaceful settlement? As to talks with various parties, will the Prime Minister give an absolute assurance that no party will be able to use a boycott or veto to scupper the peace process and that the Prime Minister will not be deflected by his Government's desire to secure the support of Unionist votes in the House?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the participants in the talks would put up with a veto, which is the most practical point arising from the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if the talks procedure itself is to produce a lasting outcome, it will need to carry the consent of people in Northern Ireland. I shall seek, therefore, to encourage the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland at

1083
which the hon. Gentleman directed his remarks to play a full part in the constitutional discussions. They have done so thus far; they have done so very constructively. A great deal of progress has been made and I believe that they will wish to continue to make progress, as was indicated by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) a few moments ago.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a committed Conservative and Unionist Member of the House, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's total commitment to peace. All Members of the House join him in hoping that the declaration will produce peace. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that the strength of the United Kingdom is composed of the component parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—and that any breach of the Union will weaken the whole? Will my right hon. Friend, as I did some years ago, go to Northern Ireland and campaign for the Union and support those who are in favour of the Union, should the necessity arise?
The Prime Minister: My views about the Union, as I indicated a moment or so ago, are well known and I do not believe that they can be seriously challenged by anyone who considers the record at the general election, before the general election, or subsequent to the general election, or considers the detail of the joint declaration. I also hold to the belief, however, that in the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine the position. I believe that that is the right way to proceed and I think that in due course that is the way in which we must proceed.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In welcoming the statement and wishing its ideals and its aspirations fair wind, although I recognise the many difficult days which still lie ahead, may I re-emphasise, on behalf of the constitutional nationalist parties in the House, the importance that we attach to achieving our aims through the ballot box, through reasoned arguments and through the democratically expressed views of the people of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, be that through a referendum or through a general election?
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle on the bravery that he has shown for many months, along with other people whose names perhaps are not so well known in this context, and I hope that the efforts that have been made will bring about a lasting settlement. Finally, I remind the Prime Minister that in Europe there is a great opportunity for the diversity of nations to be recognised as equal partners.
The Prime Minister: On her first two points, the hon. Lady will carry almost everyone with her, and I believe that she deserves to. The third point was rather more elliptical, but I think that, in principle, I can agree with the hon. Lady.
Mr. James Couchman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those who have helped in the making of this historic agreement. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that no commitment —explicit or implicit—has been made for any form of amnesty for those people who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland, and that the
1084
judicial process will pursue, with utmost diligence, those who have continued with their crimes of violence in recent weeks?
The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute commitment.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is appropriate at this time that we remember two brave and dedicated men from my constituency who made the supreme sacrifice as members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the weekend? Drew Beecom and Ernie Smith were fine men. Those are the sort of people who must never be betrayed. I have experienced at first hand for more than 20 years the treachery of the IRA. Is there implicit in paragraph 10, which deals with a possible permanent end to violence and the way in which the men of violence can in due course enter the democratic process, provision by both Governments for a process of verification? Will he assure us that that process includes the surrender of arms and explosives and that it requires those who have been involved in violence to declare, by drafting a new manifesto and seeking approval at the ballot box, that they totally eschew violence before they can fully enter the democratic process?
The Prime Minister: They will certainly be required to give evidence of sincerity in a renunciation of violence. That is the purpose of having a gap between the renunciation and the entry into exploratory preliminary talks, so that we can examine the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises. The dreadful murders of the two brave men that he mentioned at Fivemiletown are the latest in a long catalogue of the wholly unnecessary and wasteful actions that have destroyed so many people's lives in Northern Ireland. If the options that are opened up as a result of this declaration are to be taken up, there is a possibility that perhaps no more brave men need join them.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread welcome for the third paragraph of the declaration, which emphasises the key role of the European Community? Does he agree that the development of the single market will break down economic barriers and build up trust between the two communities? Does he also agree that it is important to have greater sporting links, as they also break down barriers and could build up the links between the two traditions? Does he agree that it would be an excellent idea if there were an all-Ireland soccer team?
The Prime Minister: An all-Ireland soccer team would be a great loss to many people who have watched Northern Ireland play the Republic on many occasions. Those of us who like watching the five nations rugby championship would also rather miss that clash. Beyond that, however, my hon. Friend is right about the impact of the single market.
Rev. Martin Smyth: None of us have doubted the Prime Minister's commitment to the Union, but perhaps in drafting the declaration it might have been wiser to put in Great Britain, because then we would have kept Scotland within the Union.
Mrs. Ewing: No, thank you.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I explore a little further whether, having offered the carrot, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic has made any commitment to join in applying the stick if it is necessary and the offer of peace is not accepted? As I understand it, the two Governments and the two nations are not at war. May I also clarify a misunderstanding that may have gone unnoticed in this place today? Sinn Fein has a democratic place and has been elected, but its representatives did not take their places in this House and it has not been prepared to act as a proper democratic party.
I shall give three simple illustrations. Having made a declaration that they would not support violence, as they would not then be eligible to be councillors, one of Sinn Fein's elected councillors has gone to the United States to defend the acts of the IRA. The other evening in my constituency, a 1,000 lb bomb was placed by the IRA in a nationalist and predominantly Roman Catholic area. It could have devasted new houses and a Roman Catholic-controlled school and one woman died. Representative McKnight of Sinn Fein refused to condemn the IRA. Is it not near time that we stopped that mollycoddling and laid down the terms under which Sinn Fein can be represented as a proper democratic party?
The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if the offer that implicitly lies there is not taken up, I have no doubt that the two Governments will continue to work together in intensified mode on security matters against men of violence, whether from the IRA, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or the Ulster Volunteer Force. The relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA is well understood, as is the pseudo-constitutional position of the president of Sinn Fein. Therein lies the link—the necessity for a complete renunciation of violence before there can be any intention of accepting the representatives of Sinn Fein in any constitutional talks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that we are not in the middle of a debate but asking questions on a statement. I am sure that if I call a few more hon. Members, they will co-operate with me and ask brisk questions, and perhaps we could have a brisk exchange.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the Prime Minister tell us what loyal Ulster has done wrong to have this further betrayal visited on it? When he talks to the House about the consent of Northern Ireland being required, will he remember, because the people of Northern Ireland have not forgotten, that their consent was neither asked for nor given for the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Their consent was neither asked for nor given for this declaration. It seems that their consent will be required only for the final act of separation.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his stomach is no longer turning at the prospect of sitting down with the IRA? Can he tell us why he has taken away the unfettered right of the people of Northern Ireland to have an act of self-determination and why he has included it in the self-determination of the island as a whole? Why is it that Prime Ministers from this House who protest the most that they are Unionists are always the ones who do the greatest harm to the Union?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that that was intended to be
1086
a wholly destructive intervention. There is no question, and the hon. Gentleman knows that there is no question, of betrayal in any sense. I would invite the hon. Gentleman to read the joint declaration and then read it again and again until he understands it, because he cannot justify what he has just said.
The constitutional guarantee and the consent principle are writ large in the statement. In the letter which the hon. Gentleman published this morning, with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Gentleman claimed that I had
"given the Prime Minister of a foreign and alien power joint jurisdiction … over part of Her Majesty's dominions".
That is what the hon. Gentleman wrote this morning. He was utterly and totally wrong about that. I have done no such thing, as the joint declaration makes unambiguously clear. The declaration states that self-determination must be
"exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
The hon. Gentleman should read the declaration before he comments on it, and not mislead people about it. I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will not always put himself between actions that will bring peace and that peace.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loyalist paramilitaries will also be expected to lay down their arms? Can he tell us what he means about the concurrent referendums? For instance, we now know from questions that he has answered that the referendums may not be on the same day. If the decision of the referendum in the south of the country is in favour, and the decision of the referendum in the north is against, do they add them up? [Interruption.] Can the Prime Minister explain what will happen in those circumstances? Does it mean that there will be no further progress? I should like to know the answer.
The Prime Minister: I sometimes despair at the hon. Gentleman. Everyone is expected to lay down their arms —that is perfectly clear. As I said, I despair at the hon. Gentleman's understanding. I have made it clear almost times beyond number at this Dispatch Box over recent weeks and now that there must be a majority in Northern Ireland. If there is no majority in Northern Ireland, the constitutional guarantee stands.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of paragraph 4 of the declaration that the British Government
"have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland",
will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government still have a "strategic or economic interest" in Wolverhampton? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: Well—[Interruption.] Don't tempt me—[Laughter.]
Let me explain to my hon. Friend: we shall not impose our views on the majority in Northern Ireland, but that, of course, does not and cannot mean that we are indifferent to their concerns and their future. We support the Union, and we protect its people. We support their rights with our cast-iron constitutional guarantee. We support their economy, and we support it generously. We deploy 18,000 of our troops in Northern Ireland, because of our concern about the situation there, and we want to ensure that the

1087
people in Northern Ireland about whom we are concerned, from both communities, can have a safer and more prosperous future in which democracy can thrive. None of that is selfish; all of it is our responsibility.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed from the Irish constitution—
Mr. David Trimble: Removed?
Mr. Beggs: Removed. Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed will my constituents recognise that, for the first time, an opportunity has arisen to seek to develop new relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Will he bear with me when I describe the great disappointments that my constituents and people elsewhere in Northern Ireland have had over little things, such as the £7 million defrauded by a citizen of the Irish Republic in Dublin out of the people who invested in International Investments Ltd? Despite the representations that have been made from Northern Ireland on that little issue, we have had no satisfaction. Therefore, we have great doubts whether we shall get satisfaction on the greater issues.
The Prime Minister: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I freely confess that I am not familiar with the particular case that he mentioned, but I am sure that if he brings it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend will examine the matter to see whether anything can be done.
Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no rational Unionist could fail to give the declaration a cautious welcome, but does he also accept that it is sensible that the declaration has not been made in an atmosphere of euphoria, as though it would bring "peace in our time"? However, it is an opportunity. I take sides with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in asking whether my right hon. Friend also agrees that those who may have some persuasive influence, although no direct influence, over the loyalist paramilitaries should persuade them to lay down their arms—before the IRA men lay down theirs, in my view.
The Prime Minister: We all wish to see the men of violence lay down their arms, whether they claim to represent the loyalist or the nationalist cause. In my judgment, both groups of people involved in violence betray the causes for which they claim to speak. My hon. Friend is right about the status of the document. It is an opportunity for peace, but it cannot be guaranteed by the two Governments; I do not guarantee it. It lies there to be taken up if the people who can deliver peace will take it up. It is not a certainty, but it is an opportunity.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) referred to euphoria. Does the Prime Minister recall the euphoria years ago when the House foolishly endorsed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has blighted the politics of Ulster ever since? If we are suspending judgment on the statement today, it is in the hope that it will lead to a way out of the cul-de-sac to which the people of Ulster have been condemned for the past eight years.
1088
Will the Prime Minister comment on the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland? At his press conference today he said that his object was to increase the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland. Does he realise that it lies uniquely within his hands to remedy that democratic deficit, and will he give us an assurance that he will not be held to ransom by other parties in other countries that are trying to block that remedy for their own selfish motives?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will suspend judgment and study the document. I am sure that that is the right thing to do. The document is complex, and genuinely deserves and will reward careful study. I hope that when he has studied it he will be reassured. As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, I am keen to proceed with the talks process. I look forward very much to examining the ideas which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to me on strand 1. We shall examine those quickly and pursue the discussions that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been engaged in for some time.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I say to my right hon. Friend that it was a remarkable achievement to have received such an unambiguous statement from the Government of Eire that they would abide by the wishes of the Northern Ireland people on the matter of unification? That fact alone should be sufficient to convince the IRA that, even by the standards of its own perverted logic, when neither Government will give it any succour or support, it has no alternative but to come to the bargaining table.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I see no need to reiterate his point.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Prime Minister aware that while the House has generally accepted his statement, the people of Northern Ireland will not perhaps look at it in the same light because for years and years and for election after election, they have voted to show that they are part of the United Kingdom? They will hardly regard the agreement as further copper fastening because they already felt that they were part of the United Kingdom. Do the Prime Minister and the House realise that the people of Northern Ireland require every encouragement to see this statement and the agreement in that light because they have always felt that they were part of the United Kingdom and they do not understand why we need an agreement to point that out?
The Prime Minister: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered the point when he said that the people of Northern Ireland have shown that they are part of the United Kingdom and that they feel strongly about that. The fact that they feel strongly about it and the debates that so frequently ensue in Northern Ireland mean that there is a need for reassurance and that reassurance is offered by the joint declaration today. They have shown, as the hon. Gentleman says, that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom. As long as they continue to show that, they need have no doubt that they will remain a part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that 25 years ago I was serving with the Army in Northern Ireland and had the task of helping build the peace line that divided the Protestant and

1089
Catholic communities of the Shankill and Falls road. Does he accept that the initiative is not just the best chance of peace, but the only chance of peace in the foreseeable future? Does he further agree that we are talking not only about peace, but about prosperity, jobs and trade for north and south Ireland to improve the standard of living of all the people?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that has not yet been made this afternoon. Were we able to end the violence that has scarred Northern Ireland for so long, it would make a remarkable difference to the business prospects of Northern Ireland, to the prospects for tourism and to the prospects for the flow of inward investment into Northern Ireland. I can think of no single event that would raise the quality of life and the standard of material prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland than an ending of violence.
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to the constitutional parties. Will he confirm that the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly is still on the table?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that that is still part of the strand 1 talks.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real importance of the declaration is that it removes any pretext for terrorism, violence and murder and that now the onus is clearly on the men of violence to give up their arms and take the peace process further?
The Prime Minister: Yes, that is entirely right. It is their decision and we hope that they will make it.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is hoped that Sinn Fein will respond positively to the joint declaration and persuade the IRA to end its armed struggle. However, some issues in the joint declaration may worry responsible Unionism in Northern Ireland—the issue of articles 2 and 3 has already been suggested. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on paragraph 11 of the declaration which deals with the establishment of a forum for peace and reconciliation? It seems that that forum is to be established by the Irish Government, although they will talk to other parties. I am not clear whether that forum is to be for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic. Is not it the case that Northern Ireland really needs a forum for peace and reconciliation and that it should be developed in that area?
The Prime Minister: The forum to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an initiative of the Irish Government which I understood would be launched after an announcement that violence had ended. That is certainly what the Taoiseach said this morning. It would be open to all constitutional parties in the north and south, but would, of course, be entirely optional. There would be no compulsion on any party to attend.
Mr. David Wilshire: In giving the joint declaration a cautious, but heartfelt welcome, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage in seizing what is potentially a poisoned chalice? May I press him further for crucial detail? Does his definition of a cessation of violence include the handing over of at least some
1090
weapons and explosives and will he assure the House that convicted murderers in Northern Ireland will serve the whole of their sentences?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that not only do I not have any notion in my mind of amnesty, but there is no suggestion of a reduction in sentences awarded by the courts. That is a matter for the courts and not something in which I wish to interfere. Were there to be an end to violence, the crimes that are currently being investigated would still be the subject of investigation in the future—that is the way our criminal justice system operates and it will continue to operate on that basis. We hope that there will be a surrender of some arms. The sine qua non is the absolute assurance that there is a renunciation of violence and that that renunciation is shown to be carried out.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the basis of a lot of the talks that have occurred in the past few weeks is the initiative taken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in meeting Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein? In the spirit of expanding democracy in Northern Ireland and in the whole country, what consideration has he given to the repeal of the prevention of terrorism Act, to a lifting of the ban on Gerry Adam's movements to this country and to the ending of the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein so that the peace process may be further hastened in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: I have not given consideration to those particular matters. Indeed, in the Republic of Ireland, there is a tougher ban, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know. I indicated earlier my admiration for what the hon. Member for Foyle has done over many years, not only over recent months. The Taoiseach's initiative did not begin a few months ago, but commenced in February 1992, at our first meeting in Downing street, soon after he became the Taoiseach.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Prime Minister must be pleased and proud to put the offer for peace on the table today and I, like most hon. Members, am happy about it. However, will he bear in mind that the active elements of terrorism in Northern Ireland will not wish to see a cessation of violence—the element that have what I call a gangster mentality who have been making a good living from what is going on? Some of those men will want actively to perpetrate further acts of violence under the guise of someone else. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will carefully scrutinise any transgression that may threaten the agreement so that we know who is the guilty party? While a referendum is being—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have asked for brisk questions. I am allowing the statement to run a long time because it is so important to the House. I wish that hon. Members would not abuse my tolerance and put one question so that I can call all hon. Members who wish to speak.
Mr. Cook: It is a most important question.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that all questions are important. The hon. Gentleman must determine the priority of his questions.
Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question speedily. I have pleaded for short questions so that other hon. Members might be called. I think that that is a fair and just way to proceed.
Mr. Cook: Concurrent with the concurrent referendums in north and southern Ireland, can we have an appropriate and complementary referendum in the United Kingdom to find out what mainland Britain thinks?
The Prime Minister: I had not contemplated a referendum of that sort on this particular issue. On the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that he is right. In terms of the criminal aspect that so often runs alongside terrorism, he touches on an important point. There is a possibility that terrorists might give up terrorism but that some might decide to continue with what one might call freelance gangsterism. The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point, and I am glad that he did so.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Prime Minister clarify the final sentence of paragraph 7, which contains the important commitment from the Taoiseach that
"in the event of overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward proposals for changes in the … Constitution which would … reflect the principle of consent"?
May I take that to mean that it does not preclude a change of that nature in the constitution in advance of a final settlement and that we might still hope that the Irish Government might, of themselves, grasp the nettle of articles 2 and 3?
The Prime Minister: It certainly does not preclude that. The hon. Gentleman has read it entirely correctly. It is a rather allusive way of indicating the fact that articles 2 and 3 might, at an appropriate time, be put forward for changes in the Irish constitution. The hon. Gentleman has read it accurately.
Ms Kate Hoey: In paragraph 4, the Prime Minister reiterates on behalf of the Government that Britain has no
"selfish strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland."
Even if hon. Members do not like it, they must accept that many people in Northern Ireland will regard that as a betrayal, even if we think it is wrong. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by that sentence? Does not he, as a British Prime Minister, think that British citizens, many of whom lost members of their families fighting for this country in the war, might feel a little sad? Will he say what he really means by it?
The Prime Minister: The essence of it is that our interest is benevolent, not selfish. I set out a series of ways in which I felt that that should be interpreted in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The essence is that we are not going to impose our views on the majority of the people in Northern Ireland against their wishes. That is the essence of what it is about, but it does not mean, and should not be interpreted as meaning, that we are indifferent to their concerns or their future. We are not indifferent to their concerns or to their future. That is why in terms of economic support and, for the past many years, military support to preserve security, we have shown our concern for the people of Northern Ireland—all of them, both communities—in the most tangible way possible.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I fully understand why the declaration concentrates mainly on finding ways of persuading Sinn Fein and its paramilitary allies to stop murdering people, but, as the majority of recent terrorist incidents have been the result of so-called "loyalist" paramilitary activities, does the Prime Minister agree that the whole House would never forgive people who went on carrying out such acts in the name of loyalty to the House and the state and nor would they forget politicians who condoned such activities?
The Prime Minister: The House wants no one to murder and kill on the basis of loyalty to the Union except perhaps at a time when the country might be at war with another nation. That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—the actions of those who call themselves loyalists besmirch the Unionist cause and are not accepted by constitutional Unionists. Their activities are as malign as those of the IRA.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hope that my reaction is not cynical, but, given the document's emphasis on the Government's commitment to honour
"the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland",
the island of Ireland will surely remain divided in the foreseeable future. Is that not a reasonble assumption? Is it not also fair to assume that significant interested parties will seek to put on the agenda the hugely important issue of a united Ireland?
The Prime Minister: I think that I have made it clear repeatedly over the past 1 hour and 25 minutes that we believe in the principle of consent and that is what, rightly in my judgment, is enshrined in the document.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the Prime Minister list to what extent the British Government's policy has been changed as a result of the joint agreement? Does he accept that merely to bring the parties to the conference table does not necessarily lessen the chance of violence? Does he recall that the last time a comprehensive peace treaty was under discussion, which all major parties had sought election successfully to support, a civil war and bloody carnage followed, the like of which we had not seen before and have not seen since?
The Prime Minister: The joint declaration is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier.
Mr. Field: What has changed?
The Prime Minister: It is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier. The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in the past, but it is rather a counsel of despair. I think that the hon. Gentleman, like me, would wish to see us make a move that may end violence and lead to a constitutional settlement. That is what we are doing. In no sense do I believe that it is going to be easy, and in no sense do I believe that we can snatch at it in a second and change the whole way of life in Ireland, or even in Northern Ireland, but it is presenting an opportunity to take a first step towards securing a long-term constitutional position by ending violence. While that violence continues, no progress can be made economically and only limited progress can be made politically so it is a wholly desirable

1093
step. We are seeking to ensure that violence ends so that we can begin the further discussions that will have to take place.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I should like to add my congratulations to those who brought about this joint declaration and I am very pleased because it is, of course, Labour party policy that there should be a united Ireland only with the consent of the people in the north. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the chill of the horror of violence in Northern Ireland goes across the border? Although we bow to the experience of Northern Ireland Members, it does not go down well to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) claim that it was only in his fiefdom. Is he aware that I lost a relative in 1973 in a pub bombing in Belfast?
Is he aware that last night there was a peace vigil at St. Martin-in-the-Fields at which hon. Members of all parties stood with people from Northern Ireland calling for an end to violence and killing for Christmas and, we hope, onwards in Northern Ireland? There were people there from the Ophsal Commission and members of Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Does he know that people in Families Against Intimidation and Terror are saying that they are underfunded? Does he not agree with me that the civil society will have to be built in Ireland, not just political initiatives, before the people of Ireland who are against violence can come into the light and drive the men of terror into the darkness?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right on the question of violence. Clearly, hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have had far greater experience of violence over the past 25 years than those of us with mainland constituencies. The hon. Gentleman cited his own case, and many of us will have had friends involved in the violence in Northern Ireland. In later years, perhaps most noticeably recently in the dreadful events in Warrington, that violence has spilled over to the mainland. While the brunt has been borne in Northern Ireland, I think that an understanding of what the people of Northern Ireland have suffered has increased in recent years and I think it is desirable that it has done so. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the violence spreads beyond an individual constituency, however bad things may have been in that constituency.
The hon. Gentleman's second point returns to a point made by one of my hon. Friends a few moments ago: nothing will do more for the economic well-being of Northern Ireland, in the short and the long term, than an end to violence.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Bearing in mind the wide international interest in the whole of the island of Ireland, will my right hon. Friend seek the support of the Republic of Ireland in explaining the present initiative in the United States and elsewhere?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will see that we will have that support.

Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Radioactive Discharges)
4.59 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I wish to make a statement on the decisions that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have made in respect of the authorisation of radioactive discharges from the British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield. Copies of our full decision, together with supporting summary documents, are now available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
My right hon. Friend apologises for being unable to be in the House this afternoon: she is attending an Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on behalf of the United Kingdom.
In April 1992, British Nuclear Fuels applied to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for new authorisations for the Sellafield site under the Radioactive Substances Act, which would allow for the operation of its thermal oxide reprocessing plant, known as THORP, and a new enhanced actinide removal plant, known as EARP. Those inspectorates considered the application and prepared draft authorisations, which, in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, were made available for public consultation.
Following that consultation, the inspectorates considered the responses that had been made and prepared a report on the issues that had been raised. They concluded that no points had been raised that would cause them to reconsider the terms of their draft authorisations, which they concluded
"would effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain and the environment generally".
In their report submitted to us on 21 May, however, the inspectorates pointed out that a number of wider policy issues had been raised that they had not considered. I announced to the House on 28 June that further papers would be commissioned on those wider issues, and that my right hon. Friend and I would then hold a further round of consultation. We undertook that no decisions on the authorisations would be made until the results of that consultation were known.
A paper on the economic and commercial justification for operating THORP was commissioned from British Nuclear Fuels, and a paper that provided a statement of Government policy on reprocessing and the operation of THORP was prepared within Government. A paper on the environmental aspects of operating THORP was also presented by British Nuclear Fuels. Those papers, together with the report from the inspectorates, were made available as part of the further public consultation.
That consultation began on 4 August and ended on 4 October, although responses received after that date have been considered. Altogether, 42,500 individual responses were received, 63 per cent. of which were opposed to the operation of THORP. Overall, 29 per cent. of respondents, or just under 12,300, called for a hearing or public inquiry. That total included 85 local authorities, although Cumbria county council and Copeland district council—the two authorities with direct responsibility for the Sellafield area —did not consider a hearing to be necessary.

1095
My right hon. Friend and I have been conscious of the great responsibilities placed on us by the Act. We have personally set aside a significant part of our time to consider with great care the points that were made in the consultation, and to reach our decisions. Where appropriate, we have sought the views of other Departments and other public bodies on issues falling within their expertise.
Our responsibilities under the Act require us to consider whether any local authority or other person should be offered a hearing. On this point, my right hon. Friend and I have come to the view that the extensive consultation already carried out—first by the inspectorates and then by ourselves—offered an adequate opportunity for people to make full and informed representations. This is borne out by the quality, quantity and detail of the responses received.
The large amount of information and argument that has been presented provides a fully adequate basis for us to inform ourselves of the weight and substance of the concerns of all interested parties, and to assess and weigh that information and argument.
My right hon. Friend and I have decided not to hold a hearing or a public inquiry, not least because we are satisfied that no issues have been raised that would cause us to conclude that further consultation or debate is necessary.
In reaching our decisions, we have been conscious that any major undertaking to provide fuel for energy production, or to manage the wastes from energy production, carries some element of risk. Risk cannot be eliminated entirely, but it must always be minimised. It is the policy of the United Kingdom to ensure that radioactive discharges from nuclear installations do not result in the public receiving doses in excess of internationally agreed limits designed to protect their health and, furthermore, that those doses are kept as low as reasonably achievable.
In this case, my right hon. Friend and I must reach decisions about authorisations that would permit liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from the plant on the Sellafield site, including THORP. Our responsibility is to decide under what conditions, if any, the site and its plant may operate. Decisions about whether to use the authorisation to reprocess spent fuel are for others.
In reaching a decision on the authorisations, we have taken account of all the documents circulated, the responses to further consultation and further advice from Departments and other public bodies.
We considered, first, the narrow issues relating to the impact of the proposed authorisations on health and the environment; we believe that only those issues are legally relevant to our statutory duties. On that basis, we have concluded that the discharges permitted by the authorisations would not lead to unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. We have therefore decided that the authorisations should be granted, although we have considered it appropriate to propose a number of amendments to ensure that discharges from the site will be minimised.
The amendments would require British Nuclear Fuels to provide the inspectorates with reports each year on the means for further reducing discharges and on its forward research and development programme for krypton
1096
abatement technology. They would also require it to produce, within six months of the authorisations coming into effect, an analysis of different treatment programmes for dealing with the stored wastes once EARP is available.
To provide more clarity and consistency to the authorisations, amendments would include the incorporation of a specific limit on uranium discharges to the sea, and a total beta limit on atmospheric discharges from the Calder Hall reactors.
Under the Act, because of the conditions that we and the inspectorates are imposing, British Nuclear Fuels is entitled to make further representations. We are writing to it to ascertain whether it wishes to exercise this entitlement.
Although those narrow issues are the ones that we considered to be the limit of our legal responsibilities under the statute, we felt it right to consider the wider issues as if they were legally relevant.
The full decision, which is in the Vote Office, sets out how we have approached that task. It shows that we have considered matters of spent fuel and waste management, decisions to reprocess, economic aspects—including local employment benefits—transport issues and nonproliferation concerns.
Having weighed the various risks and benefits, in particular those arising from the operation of THORP, my right hon. Friend and I have reached the judgment that there is a sufficient balance of advantage in favour of the operation of THORP, and we are satisfied that the activities giving rise to the discharges permitted by the authorisations are justified.
For the reasons set out in detail in the full decision, we have concluded that, had these wider considerations been relevant—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should repeat that last sentence. For the reasons set out in detail in the full decision, we have concluded that, had these wider considerations been relevant, we would still have reached the same decision on the authorisations.
Subject, then, to British Nuclear Fuels' decision on the question of making further representations, the inspectorates will be instructed to issue the authorisations to British Nuclear Fuels, taking account of the amendments that we have required. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, there will be a period of 28 days between the authorisations being issued and their coming into effect.
Mr. Chris Smith: It is clear from some of this morning's newspapers, most notably The Times, that detailed briefings were given to certain journalists about the content of this afternoon's statement. I remind the Secretary of State that the House should be told first about any decision of such importance and magnitude.
Is not that typical of the lack of proper public opennesss that has characterised all the Government's decision making on this matter? Before any of us can make a sensible judgment on whether THORP should be started up, the fullest range of information about all aspects of the plant should be available to the public. That has not been the case, and it is still not the case. It is almost as if the Government had been deliberately concealing information from the public.
May I, therefore, ask the Secretary of State about a number of vital considerations on which we remain in the dark? First, why has there been no publication of the Touche Ross report on the plant's economic prospects?

1097
Why has the report not even been shown to the Comptroller and Auditor General, or some other independent authority? Why, indeed—if some reports are to be believed—have Ministers at the Department of the Environment and the Treasury not seen it?
The Secretary of State may say that this is all to do with the economics of the plant, and not with its environmental implications, but we cannot and should not divorce the two, and the Secretary of State must recognise that fact. It is especially important in the light of the justification requirements of the Euratom treaty. In that connection, can the Secretary of State explain the rather strange claims that are made in paragraphs 129 and 130 of the decision document? The document states:
"even doubling the figure used by BNFL for decommissioning costs would not significantly affect the conclusion that the operation of the plant would be likely to bring BNFL significant commercial benefit."
As BNFL's public estimate of profit from the plant overall is £500 million, and as its estimate of decommissioning costs is £900 million, how on earth can the Government reach the conclusions that they have reached in those two paragraphs?
Secondly, why has no information been placed in the public domain about the exact terms of the contracts for foreign fuel? In particular, what will be the impact of the requirement that apparently exists for surplus Japanese plutonium to be stored at Sellafield until it is needed in Japan? Should we not be told about that until it is needed in Japan? Should we not be told about that before the generation of the plutonium is put in hand?
Thirdly, why has there been no clear resolution yet of the issue of waste substitution, whereby smaller amounts of high-level waste could be returned in exchange for the retention of larger amounts of low and intermediate-level waste here in Britain? The Government have told us that a decision will be made at some unspecified time in the future—they confirm that point in paragraph 108 of the decision document issued today—but how can it possibly be sensible to make a decision now that commits us to generating large quantities of waste when the Government have not yet decided what precisely should be done with it?
Fourthly, why has the request for the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to publish information on waste substitution, and the health and safety implications of returning foreign intermediate waste, been refused—in contravention, surely, of the environmental information regulations passed by the House just a year ago? It has been claimed, I understand, that freedom of information does not apply, because RWMAC is not a public body and is not under the control of Ministers. I put it to the Secretary of State, however, that he appoints its members, funds its work, sets its terms of reference, requires it to undertake specific tasks and has the power to wind it up. How can he possibly claim that it is not under his control?
Fifthly, why is today's decision being announced without any clear information being available to the House or the public about the future of a long-term deep disposal facility for the intermediate-level waste that will be created? In its current annual report, RWMAC says that, even if Sellafield is chosen as the site, it will be 16 years before it can operate. What will happen in the meantime, and what will happen if Sellafield turns out to be an unsuitable site?
1098
Sixthly, why has the report of the public inquiry into the building of a dry storage facility at Torness not yet been published? According to some reports, it concludes that dry storage may be a preferable option to reprocessing. Is that so? If it is, is it not a material consideration in reaching a decision on THORP? Why, then, has there been such a long delay in the report's publication?
In all those respects, the way in which the Government have gone about making their decision has been wholly unacceptable. In sharp contrast to the open way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) announced his decision on 22 March 1978, the present Government have kept crucial items of information under wraps, well away from public scrutiny. They are still at it, denying us the full information that we need if we are to make a proper judgment on the merits of their decision.
As the Government seem determined to proceed, may I ask them to make absolutely certain that the same furtiveness does not characterise the control and monitoring of emissions from the plant? It is surely vital —especially now, with a very tight tolerance between actual discharges and overall authorisation limits—that the strictest monitoring procedures are in place, and are seen by the public to be implemented properly.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he expects progressive reductions in discharge levels and that progress will be reported to the inspectorates. Can he guarantee that progress will also be reported to the public? Freedom of information may have been consistently denied by the Government in reaching the decision that they have announced today. I warn them that any denial of access to information during the course of implementation of that decision will not be forgiven.
Mr. Gummer: The House might be forgiven for concluding, following what has been said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that the only matter under wraps is the official Opposition's view on the issue. The Government have acted with complete openness, as anyone who reads the decision document will see. Only recently, the House debated THORP and declared its own view. Matters relating to the economic base on which the plant proceeds are, of course, partly to do with the decision; to that extent, they are stated very clearly in the decision letter.
The contracts ensure that all waste is to be sent back; matters of substitution, therefore, are not connected with the authorisations, which are made on the basis of the situation as it obtains. That, too, is made clear in the decision letter. We have consulted RWMAC very fully, and the consultation document from RWMAC is also in the Vote Office for hon. Members to read.
We have discussed in great detail the comparison between dry storage and reprocessing, and have reached certain very clear conclusions, which would in no way be altered by whatever statement results from the inspector's inquiry into Torness.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I have spent a long time on the investigations, not knowing how we would reach a conclusion—for this was a matter of considerable detail. We are entirely satisfied, however, that our conclusion is based on the facts, and that those facts would not be changed by any further discussion of the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. With the remainder of today's business in mind, I require hon. Members to put their questions briskly, and to be given brisk answers. [Interruption.] Order. I time the statements and the responses from the Opposition Front Bench and take it up with them at an appropriate time.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having delayed the opening and made himself doubly sure in recent months about safety matters, no one can fairly say that the matter has been entered into lightly or hastily? Can he think of any major project in this country over the years that has been more thoroughly crawled over, debated and inquired into since this project was introduced by the right hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in the 1970s, when the House has endorsed the project three times, when we had the 100-day inquiry, which was the longest that there had ever been, and over the past two years there has been a whole series of other consultations and approval by the—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must now come to order. [Interruption.] Order—all hon. Members. I require questions to the Secretary of State, not long statements. The House tends to forget that we are not in the middle of a debate. We have yet to start the debate. I want questions to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Gummer: We have given the subject the very serious consideration that is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I were not willing to reach a conclusion until we had properly considered the matter. We believe that we have done so and that any fair-minded person would agree with us.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As millions of people around the world think that the Secretary of State and the Minister have made not just a wrong decision but a dangerously wrong decision, will he tell us where in the report—it does not appear anywhere —he justifies increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation around the world, and the creation of more plutonium, of which the world has an abundant excess already, and, on the very day that we talk about peace on the other side of the Irish sea, committing Britain to the reprocessing of nuclear waste, while all informed academic and political opinion suggests that the best way of dealing with it is by deep disposal or dry storage, not reprocessing, which nobody now thinks is a sensible way to proceed?
Mr. Gummer: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has not studied, and could not study with the adequacy that I would expect from him, the decision letter that we have written.
Mr. Hughes: Of course I have.
Mr. Gummer: Well, the hon. Gentleman should not say what is clearly not true about the document.
In addition, I want to say something directly to the hon. Gentleman. He has a responsibility not to trot out the views that he has held for some time without looking at the evidence and the statement we have made. We have carefully sought to face every issue, and if I had been
1100
convinced of his case, I would have refused the authorisations. It is because I am entirely unconvinced of his case that I have authorised those matters.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On behalf of the company in my constituency, Davy Nuclear, which built the plant, I thank the Secretary of State for the comprehensive way in which he has dealt with all the representations and objections and made what will be seen in future years as a sensible and far-sighted decision.
Mr. Gummer: We tried to take all matters into account, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with the result.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) presented these proposals in May 1978, there has been a fundamental change? Uranium is in massive supply, the fast breeder reactor has been cancelled, nuclear power has been revealed to be three and a half times as expensive as coal, and there have been accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
The production by the plant of plutonium sufficient to produce 5,000 bombs of the size of those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki merits a proper inquiry and a debate and decision by the House. Just as the House reached a decision in 1978, so in this case the House should be asked to make its own decision on the matter.
Mr. Gummer: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read carefully the document that I have put before him. If he were to do so, he would recognise that all those matters have been taken into account.
Mr. Benn indicated dissent.
Mr. Gummer: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. They were taken into account. When he reads the document, he will so recognise, unless he is determined before reading it to maintain his present view, which is very different from the view that he once had. The thing that has changed most during that period is the right hon. Gentleman's own views.
Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would like to congratulate him on the thoroughness with which he has looked into this whole business, and the decisiveness with which he has today given authorisation for THORP? Does he agree that his statement this afternoon will guarantee the maintenance of jobs in Cumbria, ensure that export orders already taken are fulfilled, justify the expenditure put into THORP, and, above all, maintain the credibility of our nuclear industry?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. But had the science and the facts pointed otherwise, my right hon. Friend and I would not have authorised the go-ahead for THORP.
Mr. Llew Smith: The present Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Employment quite rightly voted against THORP in 1978. Is the Minister aware of any statement of theirs changing that position? If not, can we expect their resignations this afternoon?
Secondly, on 6 December, I was informed by the Energy Minister that civil nuclear materials had been taken out of safeguards on 46 occasions since 1990. What evidence can the Secretary of State give the House that

1101
plutonium from THORP will not be removed from safeguards in the same way? Finally, can we have a copy of the Touche Ross report?
Mr. Gummer: The authorisations are given by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, acting together in a judicial capacity. Decisions taken by members of the Government at any future or past time are their responsibility. Just as I would be extremely angry were any of my colleagues to try to interfere in the responsibilities that I have, so I have no intention of interfering with their responsibilities.
As to the hon. Gentleman's question about plutonium, that is clearly covered in the document, which I am sure he has not had time to peruse. When he reads it, he will see how we have dealt with the Touche Ross report—
Mr. Smith: And Touche Ross?
Mr. Gummer: When the hon. Gentleman reads that report, he will see how we have dealt with all the economic case.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddlesworth): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as surely as night follows day, there will be a worldwide depletion of oil, gas and coal, and that future generations will have to rely on people such as British Nuclear Fuels, who reprocess spent fuel and store it so that future generations can have the energy that we enjoy today? Why should we let the French take the lead in the nuclear field? We should be long-term players, and go for it.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend's views will be echoed by many, but in these circumstances, my right hon. Friend and I were ruled by the facts of science, not by any commercial consideration.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Now that the prime issue in world politics is for counter-proliferation policies to deal with the present turmoil and the turmoil that will come—not now, but in the next centuries, because plutonium and radioactivity are for ever—will not history judge today as the day that the Government went mad and decided hugely to increase the amount of radioactive waste and plutonium that will be sent to the four corners of the earth? Today's scientifically illiterate decision will be regarded by history as a giant error taken by pigmy politicians.
Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about politics, not about science.
Mr. Flynn: I am a scientist.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may be a scientist, but he has obviously not yet read what I have written in the decision document. I do not blame him for that, but I hope that at least he will not bring his prejudices to bear until he has read the document. If he really thinks that my right hon. Friend and I would have given these authorisations if what he said were true, he has an estimate of his fellow Members of which he should be ashamed.
Mr. Richard Page: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which looked at the cost of construction of THORP, I know that it became fairly obvious at that time that, with expert marketing and cost control, there was considerable opportunity for exports for this country. Therefore, with
1102
the safety amendments that my right hon. Friend has announced, I welcome the decision that at long last it is to go ahead. Will United Kingdom nuclear power station operators be compelled to use THORP for reprocessing or will they be allowed to continue their existing storage methods on site?
Mr. Gummer: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no compulsion.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I will be very specific and brief. How many Welsh local authorities made representations to the Minister on THORP? What percentage of them expressed quite clearly their opposition to the commissioning of THORP? I emphasise that there will be dismay in Wales and across the sea in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, whose shores are washed, and will be washed, by waters polluted by the emissions from Sellafield.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to reassure any of those who fall within the categories that he mentioned that I would not have given the authorisations were I not sure that they properly protected public health and the environment. If I had thought that they did not do so, I would not have given the authorisations. I am happy to send the hon. Gentleman a list of the local authorities that wrote to us.
Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his decision will be widely welcomed in the north-west, especially in Cumbria and in my county of Lancashire. Will he now back the efforts of the nuclear industry's trade union movement, especially the THORP nuclear workers support organisation, which is supported by the GMB and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electricial Union and which is seeking to persuade Labour-controlled Lancashire county council not to back any effort that might be made by Greenpeace to seek a judicial review of my right hon. Friend's decision?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I hope that he will now accept that it was reasonable to have longer to consider the matter so that people could be absolutely sure that everything had been taken into account. Given the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself, the other matters to which my hon. Friend referred are matters for others.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The point has been well made that when the decision was first made about THORP in 1978, the world situation with regard to plutonium production was very different from what it is today. What risk assessment has the Secretary of State made of what seems to us to be a highly irresponsible decision to pour surplus plutonium on to the world market in today's increasingly unstable world?
Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Lady reads the decision letter, she will see that we have dealt with that matter very clearly. With regard to these very serious matters, she should not use those phrases, which are very far from the truth.
Mr. Julian Brazier: As my right hon. Friend has obviously taken the proliferation issue extremely seriously, may I urge him to continue, through

1103
his inspectorate, to monitor very carefully the physical security of plutonium in storage, in transit and, above all, in terms of with whom we trade in it?
Mr. Gummer: I shall ensure that my right hon. Friends who are responsible for that know exactly what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that they will give an exact and detailed response.
Mr. Frank Cook: To what peaceful purpose will the Secretary of State's customers put the liberated plutonium? What consultations took place with the Irish Government?
Mr. Gummer: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, plutonium is already used in MOX fuel to provide fuel for nuclear power stations. Customers have said that they intend to use it for that. The Irish Government made their opinions very clear to us in part of the consultations.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nuclear waste is an international problem and that there will be a problem in decommissioning British nuclear power stations in future? Does he agree that, in terms of the environment and safety, the best way to deal with the problem is to use THORP plant? That is a much better way than dry storage.
Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the two are directly comparable. Dry storage might well lead to the need to reprocess at the end of the dry storage period. There is no direct comparison. We must remember, however, that there is risk in the production of energy in any circumstances. It is our job to try to look at that risk sensibly and carefully and to reach a proper conclusion. One of the sadnesses is that some people concern themselves with frightening people without recognising that other methods may be riskier than those that are chosen. The Liberal party, above all, is doing that.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that the decision will be welcomed on the west coast of Cumbria, and especially by those who work at Sellafield and by those who will be taken on. Is it not cynical, however, that the Government should hold back the decision on RAF Carlisle until today? On the day when they have made an announcement on THORP which will increase jobs, they have cut 800 jobs in Carlisle. We need a mixed economy in Cumbria, not one based simply on the nuclear industry.
Mr. Gummer: I think that I will answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Decisions were not made on the basis of providing jobs. If it had been clear to us that the authorisations should not be given for scientific reasons, we would not have given them. However, I am happy that, as the authorisations are clearly the right course, they will provide further jobs in Cumbria.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the very damaging report produced by Greenpeace, which stated that there would be 600 deaths if the plant were to be opened? Will he reassure my constituents that that report was rubbish?
Mr. Gummer: I do not have to deal with that myself, I can quote RWMAC, the official body that deals with such matters. It said that that report was misleading and should not be used in that way. I am sure that no hon. Member would want to associate himself with that kind of report.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Minister think again about some of his earlier replies and accept that the commercial demand for plutonium is far lower than it was when THORP was first suggested, that fast-breeder reactors are not going to be built now and that the only significant use for plutonium is in the construction of nuclear weapons? Does he understand that the stockpiling of plutonium produced by THORP, whether or not it is stored securely, will be an incentive for other countries to acquire a nuclear capability at a time when we should be doing our utmost to stop nuclear proliferation?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend and I covered that point in the document before the House. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments and that is why on this ground, as on others, I have allowed the authorisations to go forward.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Who in the Government considered the issue of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, which arise from giving THORP the go-ahead? Why have the Government given those matters such a low weighting in their considerations? Is not the decision immensely dangerous and against national and international interests?
Mr. Gummer: This is a matter not for the Government but for my right hon. Friend and me. We reached our conclusions in a very long series of meetings, in which we sought to find the best answer and to carry out our responsibilities under the Act. We took very considerable care to consider proliferation. We have said what we thought about that in the decision letter. I take a different view from the hon. Gentleman. I have spent a great deal of time examining the matter and reaching my judgment. I hope that he will take as much time.
Mr. George Howarth: Throughout his statement, the Secretary of State has repeatedly dodged answering questions and requests to publish the Touche Ross report by referring hon. Members to the decision itself. The decision only covers the economic case in three short pages. In the light of that, it is impossible to assess what it means. Will the Secretary of State now take a decision and tell the House that he will, in due course, publish the Touche Ross report so that people can make an informed judgment about the case and not be, as we are at the moment, left in the dark?
Mr. Gummer: It must surely be the best proof of the commercial sense of such a matter that a body wishes to proceed and that contracts are in place that make the procedure profitable. The matters that relate to the authorisation are fully covered. It is not my purpose to cover matters that do not relate to the authorisations, even though I have taken into account with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wider matters that are not held to be legally our responsibility.

Northern Ireland
5.39 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation arising in Northern Ireland as the result of the Prime Minister's signing of the joint declaration with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.
I am aware that all that I can do is underscore that this matter is specific, important and urgent and that I cannot go into the argument, but, because of the Prime Minister's statement and the remarks of other right hon. and hon. Members, the House is aware of the importance of the situation in Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, we do not have any local authorities that can deal with matters such as this. Our local authorities empty bins, look after graveyards and deal with recreation. They do not have other powers. Therefore, it is essential that every democratic opportunity be taken by the House to air a matter of such grave importance. After all, we have been told today that this matter is going to bring peace. We have heard statements about peace in a week and peace at Christmas, but surely the House should take time to discuss the matter.
This week, we have had guillotines on important Bills. Surely, before the recess, we should have an opportunity to discuss this matter. Points of view should be argued and answers given. All hon. Members know the inadequacy of statements, and you, Madam Speaker, have called our attention to the fact that we must ask questions and not make speeches. I put this matter to the House on behalf of my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland 'who feel that, if all the eulogies that have been paid to the statement are true, the House should take time to discuss it, and discuss it thoroughly.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

points of order
5.41 pm
Mr. Terry Rooney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise two aspects of written question No. 134, which appeared on yesterday's Order Paper. First, does the convention on hon. Members interfering in other hon. Members' constituencies apply to written questions? Secondly, a written question was tabled yesterday, but, at 9 o'clock yesterday morning, the local authorities concerned received a press release from the Minister giving the answer, before the Vote Office was open and before hon. Members representing the relevant constituencies knew that the question had been tabled.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must raise his latter point with the Minister concerned. On his first point, the hon. Member raises a matter of convention rather than a matter of order. I prefer to leave particular cases to hon. Members to resolve between themselves. In general, however, there is no doubt that it is far preferable for hon. Members to inform colleagues when they touch on events in their constituencies. That is the courteous thing to do. I should like hon. Members to continue in that way.
Dr. Robert Spink: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that hon. Members have been challenged to use words such as "victrix" and "reverist" in the House? Is that in order, or is it balderdash?
Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Three hon. Members—I have informed one of them at least—have earned for their constituents £1,000 in goods today by using the Chamber for what I believe to be a publicity stunt for a commercial organisation. Although all hon. Members would like to do the best for their constituents, and we would all like £1,000 worth of goods to distribute, the only way in which we can do that is by giving publicity to a commercial organisation. Although that might be fairly innocent in this situation, could it not lead to other commercial organisations putting pressure on hon. Members to use the House and our powers of influence here for purely commercial ends?
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: No, I can deal with it, thank you very much. I understand that there was some charitable element in what took place.
Mr. David Shaw: It was a business.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. But I cannot approve of hon. Members being incited to play games with our proceedings. [Interruption.] Order. I have not yet finished; I am on my feet. That is what has taken place today. Nor do I approve of hon. Members agreeing to do so and that is what has happened today. I hope that there will be no more tomfoolery, because I deprecate it very greatly.
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 3.30 pm, a written answer from the Secretary of State for Health was placed in the Vote Office while the right hon. Lady herself was holding a press conference at Richmond house. Both answer and press conference deal with the financing and

1107
delivery of health care in my constituency. Although I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has decided to keep the renal unit at the Royal Free hospital, is not it disgraceful that, yet again, a Minister of the Crown has revealed changes in Government policy and funding to the press before they were detailed to the House?
Madam Speaker: I understand that that is the subject of a written answer which was made available to the House at 3.30 pm today. I understand that the Secretary of State also gave a press conference at that time. Possibly the press has picked up on an embargoed advance briefing and has breached that embargo. I deprecate such breaches, just as I deprecate any statements that are made outside the House to the media before they are made to the House.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I apologise to the House? I certainly did not appreciate that I was breaking the rules of the House when I mentioned that word. It is always a temptation, when not many Conservative Members have white beards, to try to play Father Christmas to our constituents.
Madam Speaker: There was no breaking of the rules of the House, but the hon. Gentleman was playing games with our proceedings. That is what I deprecate and I hope that it will never happen again.
Ms Liz Lynne: I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House to seek to disrupt Back-Bench business? I thought that the Leader of the House was meant to protect Back-Bench Members. Is it in order for that Parliamentary Private Secretary to remain in his position? May I refer the matter to the Procedure Committee?
Madam Speaker: There is no appeal from one day to the next and it is up to individual hon. Members to use the Standing Orders or the procedures of the House, provided that they do so correctly.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have dealt with that point of order, thank you very much. [Interruption.] I have dealt with that point of order. There is no further point of order. I know
1108
precisely what happened. The matter should have been dealt with right away. It is up to hon. Members to use the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House, provided that they do so correctly.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I make it absolutely clear that none of that money whatsoever will go to anybody's constituency—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Notification of the two statements this afternoon did not appear on the annunciator until 10 minutes to 2. I realise that that has nothing to do with you, Madam Speaker, because you deal only with the notification of private notice questions. The provision of information at 1 o'clock is a very strong convention, to allow hon. Members to organise their afternoons so that they are present for statements. Your ruling has always been that, if hon. Members are not present for statements, they are not allowed to put questions. Therefore, it is very important that information is available at 1 o'clock so that hon. Members can plan their afternoons. The Leader of the House was responsible for the difficulties which were created for hon. Members this afternoon by the incompetence which he undoubtedly displayed. I hope that that is not a precedent and that you would deprecate any future occurrences.
Madam Speaker: As a matter of fact, the matter has nothing to do with the Leader of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. The matter is the responsibility of the authorities of the House.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I did not notice that the information was not on the annunciator. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that it should be on the annunciator by 1 o'clock to allow hon. Members to make preparations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take the matter up as soon as I have left the Chair.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 21 JANUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. James Couchman

Mrs. Ann Winterton

Mr. John Hutton

Orders of the Day

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.53 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
  I will endeavour to be brief, both because this is a short and simple Bill and because I want to leave the Opposition a full opportunity to spell out their alternative proposals —if they have any. If not, the House can have the pleasure of hearing the Opposition defend the current arrangements for statutory sick pay, even though they have consistently opposed them since they were introduced in 1983.
  The Bill will give employers a greater incentive to improve the health, motivation and attendance of their employees. It will reduce and simplify the administrative burden of statutory sick pay. At the same time, we will ensure that employers in general have lower costs. Small employers will be fully reimbursed for the cost of illness after four weeks. The Bill will ensure, from April 1995, that lower-paid employees get the higher rate of sick pay.
  Britain has the highest rate of sick leave of any country in the EC except Holland. The total cost to British industry of sickness is enormous. Recent surveys put the total direct costs at somewhere between £9 billion and £13 billion a year.
  The extent of sickness and sick leave in a firm is not primarily the result of external factors outside an employer's control. The rate of sick leave varies greatly between firms, even within the same industry. High rates of sick leave often reflect poor motivation, stressful relationships, inadequate working environment, lack of interest in staff well-being and poor monitoring of absence.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does that apply to Members of Parliament?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the attendance records of hon. Members. I will tell him that, of the 200 best-attending hon. Members, 191 were Tories and only six were members of the Labour party.
  The variations are within the control of management. When managers take an interest in the health, attendance and well-being of staff, they can substantially reduce levels of absence.
  For example, an Audit Commission study three years ago criticised London boroughs for their deplorably high level of sick leave. On average, local government workers took 17 days off sick a year—twice the national average. The Audit Commission advised them how this could be improved and they have taken note of that advice. The latest figures show that the average is now reduced to 11 days. That is still high by comparison with private industry, but it shows what can be achieved by better management.
  There are considerable variations within the private sector. Japanese companies have put great emphasis on the motivation and the well-being of their employees. As a result, according to the Industrial Society, Japanese-owned companies in Britain lose little more than half as many days through sickness as the British average.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Leaving aside small employers, is the Secretary of State aware that many employers do not pay statutory sick pay and that others sack people if they are sick? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider two brief cases before he concludes his speech.
  First, an employee in the west midlands, who has been employed by a firm for three years, was off work due to an accident at work. The employer made it clear that he never pays statutory sick pay. Secondly, the citizens advice bureau in Greater Manchester reports an increasing number of dismissals from work in connection with illness. Is that not a serious problem and will the Secretary of State comment on those cases before he concludes?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. It is a statutory scheme which employers have a statutory obligation to pay. Some employers do pay occupational sick pay, which is higher and more generous than statutory sick pay. Some do not claim statutory sick pay back from the state, although they pay the amount or more than the amount and are continuing to pay it to their employees. I will get on to the question of the response of companies in recruiting and maintaining in employment people with poor health records later.
  Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend may have heard of Beijing flu, which is apparently raging in the country at the moment. He may like to know that a constituent company of mine which I visited the other day reported that of the 40 sub-contractors which they use, not one suffered from Beijing flu last month. Of the 10 people whom they employ directly, some seven have, on the basis that the state will pay for their statutory sick pay. Does not that emphasise that people will swing the lead if they think that the taxpayer will pay for it?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is certainly true that there are variations in employment which cannot be explained by medical factors. The prevalence of what the Foreign Office would prefer us to call Peking flu is one of those factors.
  Today, a company has welcomed the Government's action in putting responsibility for sick pay back with companies. That company is Unipart, one of our leading manufacturers. It has taken the lead, particularly in improving employee conditions. Absenteeism at one of its factories used to be about 8 per cent. a year. Two years ago, Unipart introduced new working practices. People now work in teams in an improved working environment, with more challenging work and much more control over their own process. As a result, absenteeism has dropped to less than 2 per cent. and it has remained below that level. That is despite improvements in the generosity of the company's own sick pay scheme.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) mocked the idea of employers
  "deciding to expand their occupational health service—perhaps installing a gym."—[Official Report, 14 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 876.]
  Unipart's management did just that, because they see employees as stakeholders. They believe that the benefits in employee fitness are self-evidently of value to the firm. Unipart has publicly welcomed the Government's decision to put the responsibility for sick pay back with companies. It sees that as challenging management to search for the

  1111
  root causes of absenteeism and it believes that the net result will improve the performance of the United Kingdom economy.
  However, the reimbursement of the cost of statutory sick pay reduces employers' incentive to take positive action to improve the health and attendance of their staff. At the same time, it sends a message that that is not their responsibility, nor within their control. It means that good employers who minimise sick leave are effectively subsidising poor employers who do nothing to tackle the problem.
  Moreover, smaller employers in general have a much lower level of absence through sickness than do large employers. The CBI/Percom study, for example, showed that large companies with over 5,000 employees have twice the level of absence through sickness as do companies with fewer than 100 employees. Of the smallest employers with 10 or fewer staff, 37 per cent. had no staff absences through sickness long enough to qualify for statutory sick pay in 1991–92. By abolishing reimbursement, I believe that we will give employers greater incentive to motivate employees, to care for their health and to monitor their absence.
  At the same time, I intend to reduce employers' national insurance contributions by more than enough to offset the impact on employers as a whole of ending reimbursement of statutory sick pay. The ending of the 80 per cent. reimbursement of statutory sick pay means that employers would forgo about £695 million in 1994–95, but there will be £25 million of special help for small employers.
  The reduction in employers' national insurance rates will cut their national insurance contributions by some £830 million next year. That saving will reach nearly £1 billion by 1996–97. Therefore, employers in aggregate will be some £160 million pounds better off next year as a result of the combined impact of the changes and, as employers respond to the incentive to improve attendance, they will be substantially better off still.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Let me draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the problem that most people are not sick for four weeks or more, so that the bulk of costs on all sizes of companies will fall on the employer. Could not Peking flu create acute cash flow problems to a small company with a sudden abnormal rate of sickness? Will he consider whether there should be full reinbursement to small companies if a certain percentage of the national insurance contribution is crossed?
  Mr. Lilley: Particular harm is caused by the prolonged absence of key employees in small firms. However, small employers usually have lower rates of sickness and absenteeism than larger companies, so they will be net beneficiaries from the change. There may be odd weeks when they suffer because a large number of staff are off sick, but they will be gaining throughout the rest of the year. Overall, they will benefit financially from the change, particularly if they have lower-paid employees. They should also welcome the change because it gives them greater control over their own bills.
  Sir Michael Grylls: It would be extremely helpful if, in the spirit of deregulation, my right hon. Friend would consider whether some of the paperwork and administrative burdens of smaller firms
  1112
  could be simplified. Will he examine the role of the DSS or the social security inspectors who might take a more lenient view if a smaller firm genuinely finds it difficult to understand the complex regulations, and perhaps be slightly more tolerant than in the past? Perhaps the DTI one-stop shops could advise smaller employers on those aspects of book keeping, record keeping and understanding regulations?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention is not a speech, and that was rapidly becoming one.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has raised some important points about the burden on employers and the opportunities for deregulation.
  The changes will reduce the burden on employers and open up scope for further reductions in due course. As for the enforcement of existing rules by inspectors, I shall take account of my hon. Friend's point, but I believe that the actual number of legal cases ever brought under the rules is extremely limited. I recall only one and the fine was £30. Nonetheless, we do not want onerous enforcement measures and I shall take on board my hon. Friend's point.
  I propose to reduce the highest rate of employers' national insurance by 0·2 per cent. from 10·4 per cent. to 10·2 per cent. and the three lower rates by a whole percentage point. That will particularly benefit employers of less highly paid staff and make it more attractive for them to take on extra employees.
  A firm whose employees all earn £170 a week will save £88 over the year on national insurance for each employee. If the firm has average sickness, it will forgo reimbursement of SSP over the year worth £43 per employee, so on average it will gain £45 per employee per year.
  A company with the same pay level but twice the national sick leave will still break even on the two changes.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: May I make a brief point requesting information. When statutory sick pay becomes one level of return for the person who is ill, how will the uprating work? I understand that the upper level, which will now be combined with the others, has been frozen since 1990. It does not fall under the obvious Rossi or RPI machinery. How will it be uprated in future?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall make a wise judgment each year on the amount by which it will be uprated.
  Small organisations usually have below average sickness levels, but their operations may be harder hit by the prolonged absence of even a single member of staff. I therefore intend to increase the special help that we give small employers and extend it to more of them.
  At present, smaller employers receive 100 per cent. reimbursement of statutory sick pay on absences in excess of six weeks. In future, they will receive 100 per cent. reimbursement after only four weeks. At present, firms with total national insurance contribution bills of £16,000 qualify for such help. In future, I shall extend it to firms with bills of up to £20,000.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that we had attempted to conceal the fact that the abolition of 80 per cent. reimbursement would apply to small employers as well as to large ones. That is absolute nonsense.

  1113
  Let me read the letter that we sent to all the small business organisations on the day of the Budget. On statutory sick pay it said:
  "80 per cent. reimbursement will cease from 6 April 1994 i.e. there will be no reimbursement of statutory sick pay payable for sickness on or after that date."
  That could not be clearer. It continues:
  "special help for small employers will be retained and enhanced. Employers remitting national insurance contributions totalling £20,000 or less in 1993–94 will be eligible for 100 per cent. reimbursement of statutory sick pay for illness lasting longer than four weeks.".
  There was no attempt to conceal that. We have an interest in employers understanding the changes and implementing them rapidly in time for next April.
  Our proposals will help 50,000 extra employers, some 750,000 in total—that is two thirds of all employers—at a total cost of £25 million.
  Small employers will also benefit more from the reduction in national insurance rates. The reduction is greater for employees on low earnings who tend to form a high proportion of the work force in small companies.
  The Budget also included a number of other measures to help small employers and those proposals have been welcomed by industry.
  Abolition of reimbursement will also reduce the administrative burden on employers. They will no longer have to work out their total statutory sick pay bill for the year in order to calculate how much national insurance they are due to pay.
  The abolition of the lower rate of statutory sick pay will be introduced in the Bill to reform invalidity benefit, with effect from April 1995. It will further reduce the burden on employers. Previously, they had to calculate each employee's average earnings to determine which rate of statutory sick pay applied and how much they could claim. That will no longer be necessary when there is only one rate.
  Earlier this year, we set up a working party with employers to examine the scope for cutting red tape in the statutory sick pay scheme. We shall be discussing with that group whether ending reimbursement of statutory sick pay further opens up scope for reducing the burden on employers without affecting employees' rights.
  As a result of the changes, British employers will retain their relative advantage over their continental competitors. European Community employers face much greater burdens than we do. For example, German employers must pay full wages for the first six weeks of illness, yet they receive no reimbursement and pay higher social security charges. Dutch employers have to pay sick employees 70 per cent. of their earnings up to £282 per week for up to a year and they bear five sixths of the cost.
  The Opposition have claimed that ending reimbursement of statutory sick pay will lead to employers sacking sick employees and being more reluctant to take on disabled staff. They made the same claim when the rate of reimbursement was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. in 1991.
  There has been no evidence of sick employees being sacked or companies being more reluctant to employ people who have been sick. I will receive soon the Centre for Social Policy Research report examining the effects of the 1991 changes and I will publish it as soon as I do. I understand that it will not help the Opposition's case and that there is no evidence that disabled staff have been affected. In fact, it would be perverse as well as inhumane
  1114
  for employers to reduce job opportunities for the disabled. The evidence is that they have a better than average attendance record. The more that that is widely known, the more we shall be pleased.
  We shall continue to promote employment opportunities for disabled people. I was pleased to announce in the social security statement that the disability working allowance will be made more attractive. From April 1995, beneficiaries will be entitled to free prescriptions, free dental treatment and other NHS benefits.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am a registered disabled person, yet I returned the joint third best participation rate in the House in the last Session?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is proof of many great truths and I congratulate him on his record. As I said earlier, he is not joined in the top 200 by many Opposition Members. Last night, we had sad evidence of an outbreak of sickness on the Labour Benches, when the Opposition were unable to muster a quorum to continue their own Consolidated Fund debates. It is a difficult area for the Labour party in respect of attendance records and of previous Labour Governments.
  The last Labour Government imposed a surcharge on employers' national insurance that brought the total amount paid by employers to 13·5 per cent. of their pay bill. If that rate applied today, industry would bear an additional burden of ·8 billion a year.
  The final consequence of our changes is that once employers meet the full cost of SSP, it will become a form of pay and thus be subject to the EC equal treatment directive. Women and men will be entitled to statutory sick pay on the same basis. As a result, women will be entitled to receive it until the age of 65, rather than age 60 at present. That is catered for in the Bill.
  Statutory sick pay has been successful in meeting its aim of delivering sick pay through the wage packet rather than requiring employees to collect it at benefit offices. It cuts out wasteful duplication of work by employers and the state and the opportunities for a further reduction of duplication are enhanced by the Bill.
  The introduction of SSP cut civil service numbers by 3,700 and ended the anomaly whereby employees received more money when off sick than at work. I shall shortly introduce a new Bill to reform the whole structure of incapacity benefits. It will create a single SSP rate from April 1995, which will help those in lower-paid jobs. The overall structural reform will provide a more integrated set of sickness benefits than ever before and it reflects the first fruits of our sector-by-sector reform of social security. We have now tackled sickness benefits and we are in the process of improving them and providing an up-to-date and well-focused set of sickness benefits.
  The Bill will improve incentives to employers for increasing the well-being, attendance and health of their staff; lead to reduced costs for industry; and provide a more rational benefits structure for the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I appreciate the succinct way in which the Secretary of State put his case. His short speech set out the bare essentials of the

  1115
  proposals encapsulated in the Bill. It is part of a package deal offered by the Government and interconnects with a number of interesting arguments.
  There is no doubt that this important legislation deserves the proper attention that the House will want to give over the next few hours. I have no intention of re-opening the argument about the timetable motion, but it is important that the House examines what is being offered and its consequences and significance.
  One problem is that the unified Budget took some of us by surprise. The new procedures are difficult, for a unified Budget presents a mound of issues. Everything but the kitchen sink was thrown in, in terms of fiscal revenue raising and public expenditure. There is a danger that we shall lose definition and not focus as we should on all the Budget's component parts with the clarity that they deserve. I am glad of this opportunity to put that right.
  In yesterday's allocation of time debate, we heard that the Bill has only one effective clause. Clause 1 abolishes for large employers—those that account for 85 per cent. of the work force—the 80 per cent. rebate on statutory sick pay. Clearly, that is of interest to them and to those of us concerned about the way that the system works.
  I do not suggest that that comes entirely as a surprise. The Secretary of State reminded the House that the rebate system was introduced just over 10 years ago. Early in its career, it became clear that the Government had reservations about the way that it operated or at least about its part in the social security system. In 1990, a significant change occurred, when the 100 per cent. rebate plus the 7 per cent. to reimburse companies for the administrative charges that they incurred was reduced to 80 per cent.—and now that is being obliterated. It has been suspected for some time that that was the start of a slide into oblivion in terms of both the rebate and Government involvement.
  In connection with yesterday's debate on the guillotine motion, to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House contributed, there were exchanges between members of the Public Accounts Committee and the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Social Security. I make no complaint that they were slightly "Yes, Minister" in their tone. We were presented with the Government's usual "We have no plans" formula. That kind of response gives plausibility to the theory that in this country, one should believe nothing until it has been officially denied. That was a further warning shot about the likely course of events. Expectations or fears, depending on one's point of view, are amply borne out by the Bill now before the House.
  The majority of employees will depend no longer on the subsidy provided by the rebate but on their employers' resources—the scheme will be funded by industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will not think me over-partisan when I say that that is strike one for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and for his loyal lieutenant at the Department of Social Security. It is at least one area where it has been discovered that it will be possible for the Government to withdraw altogether, which is the proposition we are asked to consider.
  I accept that many companies have occupational schemes that incorporate sickness cover. However, a much-quoted 1989 survey suggested that 91 per cent. of employees were covered by such an arrangement. I do not
  1116
  want to debate that point at length, but I enter the fair caveat that that figure of 91 per cent. has been criticised as misleading, partly because many schemes exclude part of the work force from that provision. That is specifically the case with manual workers. The cover is not nearly as impressive on analysis as that headline figure suggests.
  Statutory sick pay is still important. It is common ground between myself and the Minister that statutory sick pay is still a foundation of importance to those who are suffering a period of ill-health. In the current year the higher rate—the rate that will become effective—is £52·50. I was interested in what the Secretary of State had to say about the future of that matter. He used a nice phrase —he will "use a wise judgment year by year". There are societies in which wise men are respected. It is probably true in our society as well, but there is unfortunately a preliminary dispute as to who is wise. If we could agree about that, happy unanimity would break out.
  There is an important point in the simple question that I asked, which I draw to the Secretary of State's attention. At the end of the day, companies will have to pay the higher rate which, in his wisdom, he decides; they have no control over that. That cost is totally out of their hands.
  If there is a rebate system, there is a real discipline—the discipline, perhaps, of the account book—on the Secretary of State when he makes such decisions. He has to weigh all types of factors, but one of them is that the Chancellor has to find the cash, because if he puts up generously the rebate goes up. Now he is in the position in which perhaps he will resist those temptations—I immediately concede that, knowing him—but in which he will be deciding what someone else has to pay. He will not have to foot the bill himself. There is no suggestion, presumably, that there will be a special reduction in the employer's national insurance contribution every year if the Minister is especially generous on the uprating.
  I mention that, and emphasise it, because it seems to underline some of the uncertainties that we are building into the system for employers. Although perhaps on occasions it is rather arrogantly assumed that the Labour party does not care about the problems of employers, I am not unconscious of the difficulties that can, and do, confront employers. That is an important short point.
  Mr. David Willetts: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing against the proposal on the grounds that it will lead to sick pay being higher than it would be otherwise?
  Mr. Dewar: No. I must remonstrate with the hon. Member, as I had to earlier this week. He is an alert and precocious child. He sees a point and he cannot resist getting up and making it. It is quite an endearing habit and it adds a bit of variety to sometimes rather dry and arcane debates about the world of social security, but it is not a sensible point or a point of substance. I am merely suggesting to him that there is an instability, and perhaps a potential concern about a looseness in the system. There is a divorce between he who takes the decision and he who is accountable and pays the bills. That might be a principle which commends itself to a gentleman of somewhat dry and right-wing views, generally, in the economic field.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Has my hon. Friend read a splendid publication called "The Age of Entitlement" by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who has ridden a coach and horses through many of the claims of the present Government? Specifically, he

  1117
  says that they have vastly exaggerated the effects of the demographic change and have used it as a pretext for many of their damaging policies.
  Mr. Dewar: I must confess—probably some of my colleagues may think that it is a confession—that I often read the works of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). [Interruption.] I sometimes wonder a little bit why I do it. I think that it is because, at an early stage in my career when I did not know much about the social security world, someone said that (a) he was clever and (b) he had the ear of Ministers. Those theories live on. On that basis I have tended to read the hon. Member's pamphlets.
  I agree that in that publication there is some quite useful corrective copy to the rather excitable view of the demographic time-bomb, the dependency ratio and so on, which tends to be the mark of the Government Front Bench. It would be wrong, however, if I went too far down that road. I know that Second Readings are wide, but I might find myself off a road and into a field if I follow my hon. Friend in that matter, so I shall turn back to the Bill.
  I confess that when I first saw the Bill I rather misinterpreted it. My first thought was that it was an enormous transfer of financial burden to British industry at a time when the Prime Minister, as it happened, was daily on my television set telling me about the need to compete and to keep our industry competitive. Having considered the trade figures of only a few days ago, I agree that that is something to which we should give a high priority.
  When I realised that nearly £750 million would disappear mysteriously from the public accounts and was to be met by British industry, I was very worried indeed. I accept that that is an over-simplification. Perhaps I swallowed the "one effective clause" theory about the matter because I considered the primary legislation. There are important counter-balancing propositions which appear, not in primary legislation, but, as you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, in regulations that we have not seen and which will no doubt appear before the House at some future date.
  I made the argument the other day, so I shall only repeat it in the briefest possible form; I find it rather unsatisfactory that things of so much importance are clone by regulation. The one outstanding characteristic of a regulation is that one has to take it or leave it; one cannot attempt to amend it. One has a brief debate. Sometimes brief debates are mercies, but one cannot have any shade of grey; one cannot try to adapt and improve but can only vote against. That is especially useless, it seems to me, in terms of the job that Parliament should be doing, but no doubt that is an Opposition point of view. I may have a slightly different angle on that in perhaps a couple of years' time.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would it now be logical for the hon. Gentleman to follow his concern for employers through to its logical conclusion and say that, now that he has realised that employers get more out of the Bill than they lose, the best thing to do would be to go for a brief debate, support the Bill and let us have an early night?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman, who has earned a reputation of being one of the most abrasive members of the House in many ways—[interruption]—often makes a useful contribution, I think especially in social security matters. It is perhaps a result of his experience, or previous experience, on the Social Security Select Committee. I
  1118
  often think that if people know a little about a subject it helps a sense of reason to develop. In any event, I shall have to develop my argument and hon. Members will find out that he has slightly misinterpreted me, but no doubt we can put that right if he remains with me.
  Not only do Ministers assert that the Bill will be neutral in its impact because the 0·2 per cent. and the subsidiary cuts in the other classes of employers' contributions will offset the £750 million, but they suggest that it is even a little more generous than neutral. One of the difficulties —I am not in a position personally to test it because there has hardly been time and there has not been time even to investigate in any depth with the various organisations that have an interest—is that it is a proposition that has been met with a unanimity of cynicism by the employers' organisations, with one exception. It is an important exception. The Confederation of British Industry, in a rather tortured press release, managed to be loyal at the end of the day, although with so many caveats and reservations that I am not sure that it did not do more credit to the loyalty than to the rationality. I have the document here.
  If we consider the views of other people, whether it be the Federation of Small Businesses or the National Farmers Union—it is not often that I have the opportunity to quote the NFU in that type of context—there is a strong feeling that the situation is not as simplistic or as simple as the Minister has suggested, and that there will be very substantial difficulties for people on the employers' side of the divide in the period ahead.
  While Ministers assert and employers doubt, I think that we can agree on certain things. One is that if, as a result of this massive transfer, it will be up to the employer to meet the bill, it is likely to be a permanent situation under this Conservative Government. Who knows, it may be a permanent situation, full stop? The other side of the equation, however, is that although the 0·2 per cent. might be a generous reduction in contribution when it is introduced, once there have been some upratings or variations and a Chancellor comes under pressure and does not want to increase direct taxation but thinks that he can get away with a national insurance hike, I defy anyone to say whether that 0·2 per cent. compensation will survive; it could easily go.
  The argument about additionality is similar. Many of us became involved in it and retreated in horror—defeated, confused and bewildered. Is it really additional money or is it something that the Treasury has taken into account in its calculations? Is it substitute money and not additional money? That is the problem for employers. They will certainly have to meet the £750 billion or its equivalent —it may be a little higher year on year—but there is no guarantee that they will receive anything like the same compensation after a year or two.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but is it not also true that employers whose workers have adverse working conditions that affect their health are likely to lose, even in the first instance?
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I certainly should have got round to mentioning that fact. As the Minister will be aware, some employers' organisations have been alarmed about firms operating within the construction industry, for example. There is a fear that the employers who will suffer most are those in industries where there is a lot of wear and tear on the human frame

  1119
  and where, despite improving methods that enable more working under cover, workers have to suffer harsh climatic conditions and destructive work.
  The trouble with working on global figures and averaging things out is that many people are not average and they suffer. The National Farmers Union said that. I cannot resist suggesting that the union obviously did not receive the Minister's letter, which described the matter with such clarity, but made the mistake of relying on the Chancellor's Budget statement. I notice that the union's head of parliamentary affairs, in a letter to Members of Parliament—or certainly to me—on 13 December refers to Government statements as "misleading and confusing", quotes the Chancellor and says that neither of the two statements quoted
  "can be considered to be accurate."
  There is obviously a great deal of anger about the way in which farmers have been treated. I referred to the NFU because it has made some calculations, which I cannot challenge or verify from personal experience as I have never been a farmer or done farming books. The NFU is certainly in a position to do such calculations and states that some farmers will be adversely affected—especially the more generous who pay above the farm worker's minimum wage, who will be penalised for doing so.
  I am pointing that out because the information comes from a genuine source and underlines the dangers of taking at face value the assumption that there will be a nice offset, or perhaps something a little more generous. That might be true, but there will be many exceptions—it might be true in year one, but Lord knows whether it will be in years four, five or six.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that employers should be wary because the Government might increase national insurance contributions to their disadvantage. He commented earlier about the Confederation of British Industry being loyal to the Government. Surely the memories of CBI members will go back to the time of the Labour Government. Were not all sorts of burdens imposed on industry at that time? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can remind the House what the Labour Government did about national insurance contributions, let alone all those weird and wonderful things such as selective employment tax. Is not that what employers should be wary about?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the almost ritual reference by the Secretary of State in the earlier part of his speech. I do not object, as it is part of the litany of political debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that, whatever the basis of their fear, employers are genuinely concerned about what has happened in the Bill and how it has built on the 1990 change in the law and moved so substantially towards a bail-out—or a cop-out, if one likes—by the Government.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)rose——
  Mr. Dewar: Oh dear.
  Mr. Newton: As the man who introduced and carried through the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1990, which I think is
  1120
  the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, may I relate what happened then and has happened since to the subject that he has been seeking to develop?
  In proposing and carrying through the reduction to 80 per cent. of reimbursement at that stage, I also introduced reductions in national insurance contributions, including the reduced rates for less well-paid employees. Not only have those rates stuck at the reduced level; they are exactly the same as the rates that my right hon. Friend is reducing further. By way of comparison, the Labour Government charged an employer £17·55 for an employee earning £130 per week and the figure next year will be £7·28, according to these proposals.
  Mr. Dewar: Yes, I am familiar with those figures because they appear in the Conservative party brief for this debate which was so usefully given to me.
  Mr. Lilley: I sent the hon. Gentleman a copy.
  Mr. Dewar: What a new and high level of co-operation. I look forward to that continuing and thank the right hon. Gentleman for that courtesy.
  The Leader of the House has a little room at the end of the corridor and now the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) rules in his place. Perhaps that colours industry's approach to possible future events.
  Perhaps I am taking too long. I shall try to make my point in short order. I concede that there is genuine concern that this is the start of a process that is gathering speed, whereby there will be a substantial transfer of responsibility for what have been seen as welfare functions from Government to industry. That is also a matter for controversy in other countries. As the Secretary of State will know, a major argument is raging in Germany, where the view is that the process has perhaps gone too far and has had an unfortunate impact on the German economy.
  People fear that, in the interests of what is fashionably called in Conservative party circles "shrinking" the public sector, there will be a substantial transfer of such responsibilities. I am not the only one to have that fear. When the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) was talking about the reduction from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. in 1990 he said, rather engagingly,
  "I think that most hon. Members would accept that I am a trusting soul, but equally I can claim not to be daft"—
  that is not a matter for debate at the moment, so I shall pass on—
  "and I have an awful feeling, as do the companies in the constituency that I have consulted, that the Government cannot possibly intend to increase the percentage from 80 to 90 or 95 at some point … but it is probable that the 80 per cent. will be reduced at some stage to 60 per cent."—[Official Report, 26 November, 1990; Vol. 181, c. 669.]
  He was very worried about that, and that feeling of concern was reflected throughout the debate in 1990. I am not surprised that he is not attending this debate, as it would be a distressing experience for him. If he had known that the percentage would not merely decrease to 60 but go down to nil, he would have been very worried indeed.
  I suggest to the Secretary of State that, once statutory sick pay has been transferred and becomes the responsibility of industry, with an offset on this occasion, we shall find that maternity pay and perhaps industrial injury benefit will follow.
  Indeed, this cross-references nicely to earlier exchanges in the debate. Who has been advocating this in terms of

  1121
  industrial injury benefit? The hon. Member for Havant thinks that it would be a splendid idea. When I suggested it in the Minister's ear, I saw him nodding enthusiastically.
  It seems that there is concern about the matter. We are talking about £400 million in terms of maternity pay and £650 million in terms of industrial injury benefit being transferred to industry. There is genuine cause for concern. I know that the Confederation of British Industry has asked for assurances, and the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses are worried. It is always difficult for Ministers to commit a Government, even over the next few years, but it would be extremely useful if the Minister could give us a guarantee or an assurance that this will not happen.
  There is no more assiduous a critic of the social chapter than the Secretary of State. The rhetoric that is always used when we discuss the social chapter is that it will put burdens on industry that will make it uncompetitive. It would be a tragic mistake. Against that undoubtedly genuine and sincere view—I think that it is an exaggerated view—it should be easy for the Minister to say that he will have no truck with going further down that road and burdening industry with maternity pay or industrial injury benefit.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No. I am more interested in the Minister's view than that of the hon. Gentleman. I shall listen to him in a moment.
  It would not be unreasonable to expect the Minister to say that that is not his intention. After all, in a rather dramatic interview recently on the Walden show—I think that the Minister will now be known as the "not now, not never" man from this point forward—he made it clear that there would be no opting out of the basic state pension. We got the impression that it would be over his dead body.
  This might be a convenient time for the Minister to confirm that, in the same way as he dislikes the social chapter and its implications, he will not make what he sees as the same mistake by dumping maternity pay, industrial injury benefit and other matters on industry. Perhaps the Minister would like to accept that challenge. In any event, we can come back to this point. I think that the Minister is sitting there with a certain stolid, professional phlegm; if I may say so, I know the feeling.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman referred to the burdens on business. Does he accept that one of the burdens of the statutory sick pay scheme is the complicated nature of the regulations and the administrative burdens that it places on large employers? One of the great benefits of the Bill is that it will remove that burden and compensate employers by cutting their national insurance contributions. Is not that good for business?
  Mr. Dewar: I understand the point about the rebate. Employers' federations—in this case I can only reflect their anxieties—feel that they are still heavily burdened, and fear that they will be much more heavily burdened in the future if the present policy continues. [Interruption.] I must push on because I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
  I have fundamental reservations about the so-called off-set arrangements. For the purposes of the next part of my remarks, let us accept that it is neutral, or perhaps a
  1122
  little better than neutral. When I first saw the proposition —I am sure that many of my hon. Friends made the same mistake—I thought that it was part of the major Budget strategy. I thought that it was all to do with sound money and reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. I suspect that many Tory Members thought that they were gritting their teeth, accepting pain, and battling for those admirable Tory objectives.
  Of course, it has nothing to do with that at all, as we now know and as the Minister has made clear. It has nothing to do with any of the objectives. Indeed, we now have to ask why we are getting it at all. The Minister has offered an explanation—I will not pretend that he has not done so. This considerable reorganisation will enable employers to concentrate their minds on the need to tackle absenteeism and to do something about the health problems of their work force. I want to make it clear, simply to avoid doubt, that I accept that the figures in this country are not good. I entirely accept that they should be better.
  I must make it clear that I do not want to endorse the Minister's somewhat cynical view that we cannot expect employers to take steps to deal with the matter unless they have a direct pecuniary interest in doing so. The Minister has a rather poor view of humanity. I suspect that he thinks that there is a lot of malingering, and there are many layabouts, behind the figures on absenteeism and ill health. I also suspect that he feels that we cannot expect leadership, control and developments in this field from employers unless we bribe them. I hope that that is not a view that we take of British management in the longer term.
  I will not develop this point, but I think that there are many reasons why perhaps we have higher rates of absenteeism and higher ill-health rates in some parts of the country than in others. For example, averages are misleading. Two or three months ago, I happened to look at figures on mobility rates for men between the ages of 16 and 64. The level for the city of Glasgow is 20 per cent. above the Scottish level, and the Scottish level is much higher than that of the United Kingdom.
  The view of the Greater Glasgow health board—I have to say that it is not in particularly safe hands at present in political terms—was that the figures for Glasgow could be put down to social conditions, deprivation, poverty and the long-standing factors that were highlighted by the report of the Black committee. There is a danger that, by using averages, we might be hiding the reality of the problem and possibly condoning what is effectively an additional burden on employers operating in those conditions.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman made a long and involved point about the dubiety and uncertainty that is being introduced into the system. He felt that the Secretary of State was making a distinction between those who create the obligation to pay and those on whom the payment falls. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself because he is now saying that, in a specific case where the employer is being handed the obligation to pay the bill, this is a bribe. I do not see the point.
  Mr. Dewar: It is not a matter of an obligation. The theory is that employers will take an interest because they will cut their outgoings by so doing. One cannot go to employers and say that it is good management practice.

  1123
  One cannot go to them with the five suggestions that appeared in the Conservative Central Office brief on how to improve these matters, none of which are related to or depend on the sort of reforms which we need and which we are being asked to consider at present.
  All the suggestions are simply matters of good management practice. The proposition which I am putting a caveat against is that the reforms will not happen without that financial interest. I understand that there can be a place for a financial incentive, but I think that it is overstated in this way. The argument does not hold up, for the reasons that I have explained.
  I know that all these matters are on the margin to some extent, but, as my hon. Friends have said, there is a possibility that the Bill may have an unfortunate effect. Undoubtedly, there are people who through no fault of their own are absent from work because of ill health. It may be that we are providing an incentive for employers to see them as disposable before the point at which perhaps they could have claimed for unfair dismissal. We may possibly be putting a double squeeze on some very vulnerable people. I do not know the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—I invite him to tell me. Perhaps we will get his view later.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are changing from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit. The point is that a substantial number of people—a figure of 70,000 has been mentioned, which strikes me as rather low—who qualify for invalidity benefit under the old system will not qualify for incapacity benefit. The theory is that they will have to go out and find jobs. After this system has been introduced, if I were an employer I might look long and hard at the possibility of employing such people simply because of the financial squeeze that is being built in by the reforms. That concern was expressed by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureax in a report recently circulated to hon. Members. It is really an all-party point, because the same fear was expressed during the debates in 1990, and the NACAB material suggests that, to some extent at least, it has been borne out.
  The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) has an honourable record of taking an independent stance on such matters, and on 5 February 1991 she said:
  "There are bound to be people in work who, for whatever reason, need more time off because of their illnesses. There is great worry that they will be discriminated against by a company that decides that it cannot afford to take them on because they would be off work more often than an average employee."—[Official Report, 5 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 186.]
  When that view was expressed the 100 per cent. rebate was being reduced to 80 per cent. Now the rebate is coming down in one leap to nil. Arguably, the House is entitled to take account of the fact that that substantial drop may have a bad effect. I am glad that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent interrupted me, since my next analogy may appeal to him because of his social work background.
  I spent five years of my life working full time with children in trouble, and I remember well a debate—it probably still lives on with the present Home Secretary —about a great move to make parents responsible for their children's criminal activities. The suggestion was that if a child got into trouble his parents must be fined in his place, to "larn them" to take more interest in their children. There was a general view that that might indeed have been
  1124
  effective, but not necessarily in the right way. It would not necessarily have contributed to an improvement in the quality of family life. There seems to be a danger that the reform before us will have an impact on employers, but not necessarily the impact that the Minister expects. I do not think that he has established his case.
  I have taken rather longer than I meant to, but perhaps I may briefly mention a couple of important small points. I shall simply flag them now, and perhaps during the remainder of our debates, when we get Second Reading behind us—assuming that the Government have a majority, as no doubt they will, because of the Whips—we may be able to return to some of those matters.
  First, as has already been said by at least one Conservative Member, there is a genuine worry about the small firms relief. I do not say that it was the fault of the Secretary of State or of the Department, but there was a failure to realise that, instead of the six weeks during which small firms were responsible for 20 per cent., small firms would now have to pay 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay costs for four weeks. I acknowledge that there is another part to the sum—the reduction in contributions—but because between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all absences are completed within the first four weeks, there will be a substantial additional burden, even on the small employer.
  Many people see the change as a bad bargain. I referred earlier, with some validity, to the views of the National Farmers Union on the matter, and I was intrigued to read what that organisation says about the parliamentary process. I had not seen the letter when I spoke in the debate on the timetable motion, and it gives the House something to think about:
  "As in 1991 … it seems likely that the House of Lords—which cannot be bounced in the same way—will have to take on the burden of examining the legislation in detail."
  It is bad for the House that the NFU should have reached that opinion. Moreover, sadly, the NFU is wrong, because small firms relief is not in the Bill at all. Again, it will be a matter for regulations, in which no change can be introduced.
  I do not want to exaggerate the argument, but I put it to the Minister that there is a slight danger in saying, "If you are a small firm you get relief"—let us assume for the moment that the relief is worth something, although that is a question in itself—"so there will be an advantage in staying within the definition of a small firm, but if your national insurance bill goes above £20,000, you will lose that advantage." We would, in a strange way, be building in an employment trap, equivalent to the poverty trap with which we are so familiar in other parts of the social security system.
  Today, with the assistance of the Library, I tried to test out one significant example. A firm with eight employees, assuming a salary of £250 a week per employee, would have a national insurance bill just below the £20,000 threshold. If another employee were added the bill would rise just above the £20,000, and there would be a significant financial differential in the firm's responsibility for statutory sick pay as a result. I put that fact to the Minister as another complication.
  The only other matter that I wish to raise concerns the retirement age. That is an interesting question, and I make it clear that I am on the Minister's side on the subject. As the House will know, the entitlement for statutory sick pay, which used to expire at retirement age, is now knocked out

  1125
  when a person reaches 65. That is part of the process of equal treatment for men and women, and I have no objection to it; indeed, I positively endorse it. However, I believe that there may be complications, with which the Secretary of State, or pehaps the Minister of State, may wish to deal in the wind-up or in one of the clause stand part debates.
  As I understand it, the Minister has been forced to make the change because the derogation that enabled him to preserve the current situation on the ground that it derived directly from the retirement age system, can no longer be used, as he has now transferred the responsibility for paying statutory sick pay to the employer, so it has passed out of the public sector. I hope that the problem does not arise but, as I said to the Minister of State the other day, there could be endless litigation—I think of the Rose Graham case, litigation concerning invalidity benefit, and so on.
  I hope that people will not be able to argue that, until the problem disappears in 2020—that is by no means tomorrow—some women in work will be able to draw both their pensions and statutory sick pay, whereas men will not be able to do the same beyond their retirement age. There may well be complications there. It is an interesting matter for speculation and discussion, and perhaps the Minister of State will tell us—I notice that the Minister of State is pointing straight at the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] No, he was pointing at the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is apparently to be allowed to trot out. In any event, the Minister who replies may tell us whether the Government have considered those legal matters.
  Now I am done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I think that the verb that I used is the mot juste, because I know from the correspondence that I have received that many employers feel that they will be done, or diddled, by the change in the system, and there is nothing wrong with having fellow feeling with those whose views I am tying to represent.
  The Government are making a massive extension to the system, and it has worried many hon. Members—including, I am sure, many Conservative theorists—who feel that that is not what a Conservative Government should be about. Such a transfer has potential dangers. It has brought uncertainty to industry; the Government will control what industry pays, and they are also in charge of national insurance contributions. As I have said, that is a temptation that they may not be able to resist. I believe that it would be better if they retained the responsibility in the public sector at this stage. There is an element of sleight of hand about the legislation. It opens opportunities for dishonesty by government—I use that word as a concept; I am not making a particular accusation, although possibly I could. The suggested system builds in distortions which I believe may prejudice those who are already vulnerable.
  I do not believe that the advantages of the changes have in any way been established. The Government have deliberately rejected an economic case and now talk of a social case and of incentives for better practice in industry. They have laboured to try to justify what they have proposed, but they are labouring in a false cause.
  The real explanation goes back to the ideology and the battles in the Department of Social Security and the Treasury over the shape and size of the public sector. The measure is attractive to them because it is seen as one that will shrink the public sector and that will privatise a benefit. It allows a manipulation of the figures to enable
  1126
  those who still have a loyalty to the No Turning Back group, to the hard right and to the memories of Lady Thatcher to say that they are on the march. I do not care about them and their marching. I want legislation that has some relevance to the better government of the country and that creates better conditions under which people can live. I do not want legislation that is based on ideology and that is no more than a victory for faction over common sense. That is why I will vote against the Bill.
  7 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I listened with great care to the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He said that there would be dangerous uncertainty in a situation in which the Minister set the minimum level for statutory sick pay and the employer had to pay. One cannot logically argue in that way, as he did, and at the same time support a statutory minimum wage, as he does, where exactly the same principles would apply. That is totally illogical.
  Opposition Members repeatedly made the point, with which I also disagree, that an employer is more likely to dismiss somebody who has a poor sickness record as a result of the changes. If someone has been employed for two years and qualifies for the unfair dismissal legislation, it would not be possible for employers to dismiss out of hand for sickness without a heavy award in a tribunal.
  Leading cases suggest that, to justify dismissal, there needs to be an extended absence of an employee of six months to a year or a record of 25 to 50 per cent. of non-attendance on a regular basis. To suggest that dismissal can occur willy-nilly is wrong.
  For people who have been employed for less than two years, it is uneconomic for the employer to dismiss them rather than pay statutory sick pay. Four weeks' statutory sick pay is more than £200, and to pay two weeks' wages by way of notice is far more than that. It makes no economic sense, and the employer would pay a heavy price if he took that heavy-handed approach.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: As has been pointed out, if the measure goes through, the employer will be liable for five times more money than at present. If someone has been employed for two years and they are lead-swingers or become so, the burden on employers will be five times what it was before. My hon. Friend said that it is not difficult to take cases to an industrial tribunal. Does not he have some concern for employers who find themselves in such a situation, because they will have to pay five times as much as before, and will be able to do nothing about it?
  Mr. Heald: Conservative Members have always supported good industrial relations. [Interruption.] We have always supported the industrial relations code of practice, and any employer who breaks the law by unfair dismissal should pay the price; we should not derogate from that at all.
  However, it is important to remember that a whole series of measures have been added to the contract of employment to protect the weakest in society, and statutory sick pay is one of them. At the moment, an employer can offset his national insurance contributions against statutory sick pay, and does not have to pay the full amount.
  We should consider the Government's proposals in that context. They are proposing to cut the national insurance

  1127
  contributions and put more of the burden of SSP on to the employer than at present. There is a neutral effect on cost, but when one considers the burdens on business of administration and regulation, one realises that the Government are proposing to free employers of 85 per cent. of the working population from them, that the measure has a good deal of Conservative sense, and that even members of the No Turning Back group could not possibly disagree. I am not a paid-up member, by the way.
  Mr. Marlow: I do not think that my hon. Friend has addressed the specific point that I made. A lead-swinger who is trying to buck the system and who takes three days off every now and then because he wants to go somewhere, but is not an obvious enough case to take before an industrial tribunal, will cost the employer five times as much as before. Does not my hon. Friend have sympathy for the employer under those circumstances?
  Mr. Heald: I do not agree that it will cost the employer five times as much, because, on average, a small business with five workers on £190 a week, accounting for the cut in national insurance contributions, would be £400 a year better off. One cannot complain on their behalf.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The situation is desperate.
  Mr. Heald: The situation would certainly be desperate if the Labour party came to power.
  If someone is shown to be absent from work without justification over a period, there is no reason why an employer cannot dismiss that person and it would be fair. However, Conservative Members must never say that we support poor industrial relations practice. It is important that we support the best.
  I wish to make three points. First, the changes will remove a layer of unnecessary Government bureaucracy and over-regulation of business, with no effect on the costs of industry. Secondly, the changes will make employers more competitive and create jobs. Thirdly, the changes will be good for the health of employees.
  Mr. John Spellar: Is that from central office?
  Mr. Heald: No, these are not the words of central office. This is the real world.
  Mr. Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman describe how the changes will create jobs?
  Mr. Heald: I am happy to do that. In the example that I gave a moment ago, the effect on a firm with five employees on an average wage of £190 a week who have average rates of sickness would be to reduce their costs by £400 per annum. Small businesses regularly tell the Select Committee on Employment that, if the burdens on business are reduced, more jobs will be created, because they will be more competitive and sell more goods, and the market will do its work. In my constituency, there are 1,200 small businesses in Letchworth, and I believe that they would accept that challenge whole-heartedly.
  The argument is different for the large employer. The scale of the regulation of which we are talking is quite draconian. If one consults the handy guide of D. W.
  1128
  Pollard's book on social welfare law, one sees the problems that large employers currently have, which will be removed.
  Mr. Spellar: I cannot follow the logic. We are being told that the changes are broadly neutral financially, so industry will not save money. Therefore, using the hon. Gentleman's logic, some companies will create jobs, while other companies will lose jobs. It will not have the effect he says. The real effect may well rest on those who are applying for jobs, especially those middle-aged workers who have been made redundant and who will find it more difficult to get into work because, statistically, they will be seen as a higher risk. That is exactly what has happened in the United States.
  Mr. Heald: The provision is better than neutral; it provides £162 million extra for business, in the sense that its costs will be reduced by that amount. As for the hon. Gentleman's idea that employers do not currently consider the health of the people they take on, it is not true. Every employer already asks employees about their health before taking them on—91 per cent. of workplaces have health schemes for which the insurance companies require them to do so.
  It is wrong to suggest that employers will suddenly become conscious of employees' health before taking them on—they already are. However, employers will be far more aware of the health of their existing employees and of those they have taken on, because it is in their direct financial interest to improve health and lower the absentee rate.
  Mr. Rowe: As we drive up the training standards on which the future of this country depends, is it not the case that the present balance, which is already in favour of an employer much preferring to keep an employee at work than allowing him to be sick—however much he is likely to be reimbursed—will swing even further in that direction? The more skilled an employee, the more costly it is for him to be away from the business.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which I wholly agree. The average training cost nowadays for someone in manufacturing industry is about £25,000, so £400 for four weeks' statutory sick pay pales into insignificance.
  I was about to read from D. W. Pollard's handy guide to social welfare law to give a flavour of the regulations. It states:
  "There will be repaid by the Secretary of State or by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on behalf of the Secretary of State to an employer the amount, or part thereof, prescribed in D. 1560, provided that the employer has requested the Secretary of State in writing to do so and that the Secretary of State is satisfied that either:

  (i) after the employer had deducted all or part of the amount he or she was entitled to deduct by virtue of D. 1556, the amount of primary and secondary Class 1 national insurance contributions he or she is required to pay is insufficient to enable him or her to deduct therefrom all or part of the amount he or she"—

  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Regulations are intriguing but, for the sake of history, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House which Government published this regulation?
  Mr. Heald: Clearly, these regulations were published by this Conservative Government, but, if there is to be a

  1129
  reimbursement scheme—something for which Labour Members seemed to be arguing barely a moment ago—one must have regulations of this type, because that is the only way to administer the scheme. The Government's view—rightly—is that, if the employers of 85 per cent. of the working population are taken out of the scheme, one can save a huge amount in administrative costs for the Government, the taxpayer and employers.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also appeared to think so, because, during the debate on the money resolution, he said:
  "It would not be unreasonable to expect a reduction in staff responsibilities, so why do we require the money resolution? After all, there will not be the substantial—I am sure that it must be substantial—administrative coming and going and expense which is at present the consequence of paying the 80 per cent. of sick pay reclaimed by the majority of employers. Clearly, that must involve a great deal of paperwork. It must involve the monitoring, processing and satisfying of claims. If all that is to be swept away, that is a big plus which presumably would result in a reduction in the administration expenses for which the Minister is responsible."—[Official Report, 14 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 791.]
  [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Gentleman saying that I have taken his comments out of context, but it is clear that there are savings to be made, and that they could be considerable for the public purse and for large employers.
  My second point is that employers need to have the lowest possible costs, so that they can compete. Large employers are for ever saying that to the Select Committee on Employment, of which I am a member, as are the Institute of Directors, and the Confederation of British Industry and various other bodies, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask the Government to remove the burdens and regulations but, when the Government have done so, complain because they would like not only cuts in national insurance but not to have to bear any of the costs. The measure will therefore bring considerable benefits to large employers, and I have already dealt with small employers.
  On the question of the sickness and health of the work force, there are lessons to he learned from the experience of the London boroughs which were outlined earlier. It was possible for the level of sickness and absenteeism to be reduced from 17 per cent. to 14 per cent. in a relatively short period, merely by improving management practice.
  If one can introduce financial incentives, as the Bill would, one can make considerable inroads into the problem and make Britain one of the best countries in terms of absenteeism, rather than one of the worst. I am led to think that because, apart from the statistical evidence provided by the London boroughs, there is the obvious thought that, if there is money in it for the employer, the scheme is likely to work.
  A woman came to my surgery recently to complain that her employer was putting pressure on her to remain off sick because he had a downturn at work and welcomed the fact that the state was paying for what amounted to a lay-off. She said that the same was true for three or four other employees in the same company near my constituency.
  Mr. Spellar: Is that the upturn?
  Mr. Heald: I hear the criticism.
  I was lucky because it turned out that she was not one of my constituents, so I was not put in an embarrassing situation with a constituency company—the company involved was just over the border. The lesson, however, is that it may not simply be a question of someone swinging
  1130
  the lead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) suggested; some employers may to some extent have connived in creating a higher level of absenteeism than is strictly right.
  I welcome the Bill, because it will help industry and jobs, and that is why I shall vote for Second Reading tonight.
  7.17 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I am delighted to be called, because the debate offers me the opportunity to raise many of my fears, especially those for people with disabilities, those with long-term health problems and ex-mental health patients.
  Many of the measures in the Bill will debar many such people from obtaining work. Many employers will clearly not want to employ someone who has a bad sickness record and, by the very nature of their problems, people with disabilities often have to take time off work. I stress that that is not true of all people with disabilities, because some do not need to take time off. However, others do, and I believe that they will be strongly disadvantaged.
  We have been led to believe that national insurance contributions were supposed to provide money for people when they were unemployed or sick. People have been paying into the scheme for years, but they now find that they are not getting the benefits that they have paid for from the Government.
  Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Lady aware that it is not a contributory scheme?
  Ms Lynne: Yes, I am well aware of that. The hon. Gentleman may wish to speak later, although he has already had the opportunity to make a speech. He did not make his points very well, so I do not think that it is worth while his intervening on someone else. It is just another example of the games that Conservative Members have played in the past few days. In the Budget, the increase in national contributions was 1 per cent., and a person earning £18,000 a year will have to pay an extra £150 a year. At the same time, the Government are dismantling the advantages of the welfare state. That is despicable—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but people in their constituencies will not be laughing quite so much.
  The Government are reneging on their side of the deal. It was a swift and deadly Budget, in which unemployment benefit was reduced to six months and statutory sick pay for many has been abolished. The Government attempted to compensate for statutory sick pay by reducing employers' national insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. for large firms and by 1 per cent. for small firms. How do the Government know how many people will be off sick? How have they calculated that? Do they have a hot line to Russell Grant, or some other astrologer? Are they employing him to tell them how many people will be off sick and for how long?
  The Government are saying that the Bill will compensate people, and that the compensation will be adequate. I do not think it will be. The Government have made an assumption that the decrease in employers' national insurance contributions will offset the bill for statutory sick pay. That is ludicrous; it will not. It is not only Opposition Members who believe that, but small firms and larger companies.

  1131
  For example, the Federation of Small Businesses stated that, for
  "well-managed companies with low sickness rates, there will be a reduction in the cost of employing people."
  That is possible, but what about the people who, through no fault of their own, are employed by not so well-managed companies?
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lynne: No, I will get on.
  People employed by not so well-managed companies will suffer; they will not receive sickness pay, or they will lose their jobs when companies can no longer afford to employ them.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims to be a friend of small businesses, and has said that they will benefit from the Bill. Small businesses with a national insurance contributions bill of less than £20,000 will receive state paid statutory sick pay if an employee is off work for more than four weeks. That is an inadequate measure. Many employees are certainly not off for more than four weeks, in which case the employer has to pick up the entire bill.
  The owners of small businesses are extremely worried about these measures, and fear that they will cause them severe financial difficulty. For example, if a company with a work force of eight or 10 people has two workers, 25 per cent. of its work force, off sick for up to four weeks, how will it be able to afford to bring in temporary staff if it does not receive statutory sick pay? It will not, and in those circumstances it will be forced to close.
  The Government say that the compensation is high enough. I have had a communication from a company called Goldwood (Moulton) Ltd., which employs 15 people. Last year, its national insurance contributions were £11,449·59; it got back £114, but it paid out £580·20. The true cost to the company will be £464·16 extra.
  Mr. Lilley: How much will the company save on NI contributions—or was that included in the hon. Lady's figures?
  Ms Lynne: The true cost will be £464·16. I will be pleased to let the Secretary of State see the communication after the debate, if he wishes.
  Mr. Lilley: Does that take account of the reductions in national insurance contributions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Lady is giving way, she should sit down. If she is not, the Secretary of State should not stand up. Is the hon. Lady giving way?
  Ms Lynne: No, I have already given way once. I will give the figures to the Secretary of State after the debate, and if he cares to contact the firm, he is at liberty to do so. It will tell him far better than I of the problems that small businesses up and down the country are facing.
  Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lynne: No, I will not give way. I am fed up with Conservative Members trying to score party political points, as they did last night when they disrupted the
  1132
  business of the House and prevented many hon. Members from taking part in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I am not prepared to give way to Conservative Members.
  Big businesses have also voiced concerns. IBM is looking into the measures, and has said:
  "We will suffer more from a decision to stop reimbursing sick pay than we will benefit from the reduction in national insurance contributions."
  It fears that it will have to cut back on perks such as generous occupational pensions.
  If IBM, one of the best run and economically sound companies, is contemplating such moves, even with its 0·2 per cent. reduction, the mind boggles about what other companies will do to cope. They are already reeling from the recession that has been caused by this Government's policies.
  The Bill will have a prejudicial effect on the work force and society. Many employers are bound to ask about the sickness records of people looking for work, and about how much time they have had off work. If they have had too much time off work, they will not be employed. These measures will have a devastating effect on people with disabilities. Already, 40 per cent. of disabled people are out of work, and the Bill will ensure that that figure will increase.
  This is no way to run an economy. In addition to wasting the talents of many thousands of people, the Bill will increase the social security bill by putting people out of work and making them dependent on the state. The Bill is not a radical attempt to reform the welfare state; it is intended to dig the Government out of the PSBR hole that they have dug for themselves.
  7.28 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: I welcome clause 1, because it encourages British industry and commerce to become more effective, improve unit labour costs and become more competitive. The Bill is cost-neutral, as was its predecessor, the Statutory Sickness Payment Act 1991, and contains broadly compensating reductions in employers' national insurance contributions.
  The most significant financial impact of the Bill will be to encourage employers and employees alike to reduce sickness absence and improve working conditions. That will reduce the direct cost of absenteeism, and, more significantly, reduce the indirect costs of sickness absence.
  Let me explain that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Hon. Members who know British industry will understand that the negative impact of sickness absence is not only lost productivity and the cost of sickness pay for the absent worker. Of equal, or even greater, importance is the disruptive impact on the balanced production line, on delayed and duplicated administrative work, and the learning curve effects.
  The disruption impact—the secondary impact on efficiency—is of great financial consequence, greater even than the direct cost of sickness absenteeism. Unlike other forms of absenteeism, sickness absence cannot be planned. Its impact affects the whole organisation, inhibiting the effective achievement of the organisation's objectives, whatever they may be, and drives up the costs to the organisation out of all proportion to the direct costs of the statutory sick pay.
  The latest sickness absence statistics are very telling. According to the labour force survey on absenteeism, 170

  1133
  million working days are lost each year to the United Kingdom economy as a whole: that represents 3·8 per cent. of total working time, and an average of eight days per employee per year. As we have already heard, the duration of sickness absence is typically very low; some 40 per cent. of absentees are absent for fewer than four days.
  Internationally, we perform very badly: we have the second highest absenteeism rate in the European Community. I had thought that we were under-performed only by the Netherlands. Our rate of sickness absence is about half as high again as that of the United States of America. That is not acceptable; it is draining our competitiveness, and acting as a permanent leech on our economy. It is therefore right and proper for the Government to make a change that will focus employers and employees on the need to reduce unnecessary sickness.
  The CBI states:
  "incentives to reduce the costs of sickness absence are not necessary in the private sector where lost productivity provides sufficient incentive."
  Members of the CBI are reverists if they really believe that there is no room for improvement in sickness absence rates.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Did the hon. Gentleman read what the CBI said about the Bill in The Independent on Sunday:
  "It would impose costs on the employers which would be partly hidden and would damage competitiveness"?
  Dr. Spink: According to a briefing that I received from the CBI today, it supports the Bill. I shall make that material available to the hon. Lady immediately after my speech. The CBI cannot really believe that there is no unnecessary sickness absence in this country; it knows there is.
  There are interesting differences in sickness absence in the United Kingdom economy, which serve to highlight the fact that a good proportion of such absence is indeed unnecessary. For instance, in small companies—where management have a closer and much clearer understanding of employees, where the money often comes straight out of the manager's back pocket and where loyalty is strongest—sickness absence is much lower than in larger organisations.
  In Japanese companies operating in the United Kingdom, sickness absence is running at about half the average. It is notably lower in the private sector than in the public sector— hon. Members will know the story of the public-sector employee who asked his colleague whether he had managed to save any of his sick leave for Christmas shopping this year. The CBI and Industrial Society surveys do not, however, have large enough sample sizes to distinguish reliably between regions and industries.
  It will be clear to all hon. Members that, in bringing pressure to bear on the problem of sickness absence, the Government will drive up competitiveness. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar)—although, unfortunately, he is no longer in the Chamber—that that pressure will improve employment, reducing the burden on the taxpayer and the size of the bureaucracy.
  I see nothing wrong in that; I consider it a great benefit. The moribund nanny state will be pushed further back: I welcome that development, and will ask the Government to go further along the same line. I see the Bill as an element of the virtuous circle that will yield benefits to everyone, and I am delighted to support the Government.
  Ms Eagle: In its parliamentary brief, the CBI says that it does not want the Government to go any further. It appears that the hon. Gentleman agrees with one part of what it has said, but not with the other, more crucial, part.
  Dr. Spink: The hon. Lady is being very selective. The CBI says that, "in accepting the proposals", it seeks three assurances. I shall deal with those assurances shortly, but it is clear that the CBI accepts the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Spring: This is an important point. In its briefing, the CBI says:
  "In the context of the overall Budget package"—
  which was enormously welcomed by the CBI—
  "and the reassurance provided by the welcome proposals to reduce NI contributions to offset the cost of transferring SSP, the CBI does not wish to oppose the SSP Bill."
  It could not be put more plainly.
  Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: In all fairness, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) did not do the House the service that he might have done had he read the entire paragraph. The CBI goes on to say:
  "there are real concerns that some employers will not he adequately compensated, for example those in construction or heavy engineering, who face higher absence rates for reasons beyond their control. It may also hurt the small employers with around 20 employees disproportionately".
  The entire brief should be read in context, not just selective extracts.
  Dr. Spink: I agree with one implication of that statement. The construction industry, along with a number of others, needs to examine its working conditions and its safety record very carefully. They are appalling: there are far too many fatalities in our construction industry. Perhaps the Government's move will draw attention to that, and focus employers' minds on improving working conditions.
  Of course we must all welcome any move that reduces bureaucracy, as the Bill does. It will greatly simplify the administration of the statutory sick pay system. Only a small business man—or, indeed, a large business man, or rather, a business man in a large organisation —who has had to grapple with the complexity of SSP would fully appreciate the importance of that point. Indeed, a third of small businesses do not even bother to use the system, because it is so complicated.
  The CBI says that the measure will increase non-wage labour costs. However, if it works well—as I expect it to —it will reduce overall non-wage labour costs, thus reducing unit labour costs, making us more competitive and helping us around the virtuous circle that the Government are trying to pursue. I am sure that, on reflection, the CBI will accept that.
  I agree with the CBI on one key point. It seeks an assurance that
  "there will be a radical overhaul of the present complex and burdensome administrative procedures for the SSP scheme. The present Bill only relieves employers of the burden of claiming compensation!"
  I trust that the Government will give that firm assurance; I also hope that they will give careful consideration to what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said about the potential impact on disabled employees.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: The speech of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) underlined the problem that the Government have caused by rushing into the legislation. He gave one reason for his belief that the Bill would encourage employers to improve the health of their employees, thus reducing the sick pay bill; his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), however, could cite a clear case of an employer's suggesting that, because production was not as good as it should have been, employees should take more time off work in view of the sick-pay subsidy that enabled employers to pay their workers. Two very different reasons were given. The Opposition would welcome genuine measures by employers to improve the health of workers, but I do not believe that that is the purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the point that I was making—at the moment, there is a possibility of fraud occurring of the kind that I was outlining, and this measure will stop that? Does he not agree that Opposition Members, as well as Conservative Members, want to stamp out fraud of that kind so that taxpayers' money is properly spent?
  Mr. Pike: We, too, welcome the stamping out of fraud, but I bet that the employer that the hon. Gentleman was speaking about was a Tory voter and was looking at ways that he could abuse the system—tax evasion and the rest. The Opposition do not want to see the system abused. We share with that objective in mind. I do not believe that that is the principal objective of the Bill.
  I believe that we must look seriously at the implications of what is going to happen. I have no doubt—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made the point, as did other hon. Friends—that the Bill encourages the employer not to employ people seeking employment who are older or perhaps have health problems. Therefore, those people will become permanently unemployable. Employers will be given a licence to get rid of workers who have an above-average record of quite genuine sickness. Many people quite rightly interpret the Bill and the Budget proposals that relate to it as a charter to sack the sick.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman must admit that probably one of the most distressing features of the present employment market is the extraordinary difficulty that people over 50 have in even getting seen for jobs, and the Bill would not make any difference to that. What is required is a real understanding among employers that people over 50—or even over 45 these days —are more likely to have a good employment record and are more likely to turn their backs on minor illnesses. If anything, the Bill will highlight the present totally disgraceful situation and not affect the market in the way that he claims.
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have no doubt that there is a bar to people above the age of 50 and that many conscientious workers who should be considered for employment at the present time are barred. I believe that the proposal will extend the number of people aged 40 and over who will not be considered for employment because of their sickness record. Although I have some sympathy with part of his contention, I certainly would not go the whole way with what he was saying.
  1136
  I want now to deal with the 0·2 per cent. reduction in national insurance contributions, which has the same effect as all general reductions on a one-off basis; some employers will gain and some will lose. I must say to the Minister, and to the Secretary of State who is not with us at the moment, that they should give consideration to employers who employ a large percentage of their workers in types of jobs which, by their nature, are prone to creating sickness.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to construction workers, but, as he will know, many industries equate to that one example. People who work outside—people working on the roads, and in many other jobs—are at high risk of having health problems and are more likely to have time off work. Some people work shifts. Shift work creates conditions for health problems. There are a number of situations that need to be taken into account.
  I believe that the generalisation of the 0·2 per cent. reduction will penalise some employers. The Secretary of State should consider that position carefully. If the Bill is forced through, it will have unfortunate effects for some employers.
  The Secretary of State referred to the situation in Germany and Holland. In some way, he was referring to the situation with regard to employers. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that the workers got a much better deal in Holland and Germany than they do in the United Kingdom. I make no apology for saying that I believe that the Government always fail to take into account the needs of workers. That is why they are opposed to the social chapter and a national minimum wage and why they abolished the wage councils. We must ensure that the right to sick pay is protected.
  I want the Minister to look at how we can ensure that when the employer has to meet 100 per cent., bad employers will not try to evade it. I know that these things are covered by previous legislation, but there is a growing trend of employers trying to get away with such things. Unfortunately, many employers fail to recognise trade unions. Many workers dare not complain and will not get the sick pay to which they are entitled.
  I want the Minister to assure us about what steps workers can take if they feel that they are not getting their entitlement to statutory pay. The Secretary of State underlined the fact that it is statutory sick pay, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that, if an employer dodges that responsibility, there is some statutory responsibility on his Department to ensure that that payment is made.
  Mr. Hargreaves: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, as I have been part of a large organisation and have had various connections with small organisations, particularly clubs. I ask him to consider that there appear with this measure to be two angles: the first is the medium and large company and the employees thereof; the second is the growing number of much smaller companies which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary rightly said, find the form filling so horrendous that they dispense with the system altogether. To be honest, they are being very good employers in that they continue paying irrespective and are not reimbursed for it.
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but, on the point that I am making, I seek assurance from the Minister that his Department will give assistance to people if they do not get the statutory sick pay, to which they are entitled. Now that the employer will have to pay 100 per cent., I think that we may see a greater evasion of the legal responsibility by the bad employer. However, we must accept that there are good employers as well as some bad employers.
  Finally, I shall refer to the rating. Again, the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. The Secretary of State said that he would use wise judgment in that situation. I hope that we get some assurance from the Minister who is winding up that although statutory sick pay does not have to be increased by the rate of inflation, or any other factor, we will not see it effectively frozen.
  I accept that we are moving up from the lower to the higher rate. However, let us not hide from the fact that there will be a problem if that higher rate is not uprated in the years to come. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government have no intention of allowing the real value of statutory sick pay to be eroded even though they are shifting responsibility to the employer.
  The Government must accept that they have a responsibility, particularly for those workers who depend on statutory sick pay and who do not receive sick pay from their employers. Those people depend on that money and its value must not be allowed to fall in real terms. I hope that the Government recognise that they have a genuine responsibility. It is always said that we have reasonable Secretaries of State, but we all have different views about what is reasonable and about wisdom. I hope that the Government will assure us that they intend the value of SSP to be maintained in the years ahead.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I am aware of the problems of absenteeism, as I have run a business. On a national scale, up to £13 billion a year is lost to British industry in terms of additional costs as a result of absenteeism. That is a truly enormous and frightening figure.
  I have also conducted business in the Netherlands. Absenteeism is a particularly endemic problem in that country and it has provoked considerable national discussion there. Happily, we are not as badly off as they are in the Netherlands, although the record in the United Kingdom is not particularly good. On average, we lose eight days a year through sickness.
  Smaller companies are easier to manage from a personnel point of view. The level of absenteeism is twice as high in larger companies as in smaller companies. That is indicative of the scale of the problem.
  Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware of recent research which shows that a surprising number of employees of a whole variety of ages—not just the older employees—would, if given the opportunity, trade hours for pay? In other words, some of them would be prepared to work fewer hours a week if their employers gave them that opportunity. Does my hon. Friend accept that that may be a contributory cause to absenteeism and sickness? Does not that provide a window of opportunity to get people into work and off the unemployment queue?
  Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend has made a very important point. Flexibility in the way in which we operate our employment market is important. Flexibility is one of the reasons why we have been so successful as a nation at reducing unemployment in comparison with other countries in the European Union. I value the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
  When considering management, we must ask why Japanese companies operating in the United Kingdom are so successful at raising productivity levels and reducing absenteeism. Their productivity is reflected in lack of absenteeism. They have 2·3 per cent. absenteeism, as opposed to the national average of more than 4 per cent. That has not come about as a result of coercion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) referred to the Audit Commission study of London boroughs which was undertaken in 1990. The Audit Commission enunciated five principles based on good management practice which included appropriate information, suitably trained managers, attention to staff welfare, clear responsibilities and commitment by senior management.
  Absenteeism was running at two and a half times the national norm. However, as a result of the Audit Commission study, there has been a substantial decline in absenteeism as a result of the actions of management. That is an important part of the equation and it is an important element in the philosophy behind the Bill. Management should take responsibility for their employees, including for sickness and days off through absenteeism.
  Motivation to make people a part of a team and an enterprise and to feel that they want to be at work and not absent is a clear objective of all good management. It has also been said that 90 per cent. of employees in this country are covered by occupational pension schemes for short-term sickness. Therefore, employers have a significant role to play.
  Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties facing small businesses. I fully understand that point. The Federation of Small Businesses has been critical of the Bill. However, it is only fair to say that the federation and the Confederation of British Industry must consider the issue within the overall context of the Budget. After all, the Bill is a budgetary measure. The federation and the CBI both welcomed the Budget for the exceptional help it has provided for small businesses. I am a vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau which is very much in touch with, and sympathetic to, small businesses.
  It is important to make the point that the Budget offers help with cash flow. There has been a dramatic cut in interest rates over the past year. We have also seen an extension of the loan guarantee scheme and the rollover of capital gains reliefs. In addition the Government are rightly considering the question of prompt payment. Small businesses have been greatly encouraged by that. If they are critical of the Bill, they must consider it within the context of the enormous help that the Government have given the small business sector, which it has accepted unanimously, as a result of the Budget.
  It goes without saying that individual employers will depend, with regard to absenteeism, on particular levels of pay and sickness. I want to consider the specific point of small businesses and the challenges that they face in the context of the Bill. We must consider whether this is a cost-saving exercise for the Government.

  1139
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a transfer away from welfare spending. However, a misleading impression has been created that the cost of not reimbursing 80 per cent. of SSP is about £675 million in 1994–95 and £720 million in 1995–96. However, the cut in employers' national insurance contributions is worth £830 million. That is much greater than the change in SSP. It is a saving of £160 million to businesses.
  Let us consider the example of a medium-sized company employing staff who earn an average of about £170 a week. It will save £88 a year on national insurance for each employee. If the firm experienced average levels of sickness, it would forgo reimbursement of SSP over the next year of about £44 per employee. That is a gain per employee of £44 a year.
  Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is reading directly from the central office brief? Given the information that it provided during the last general election, why should we believe anything in the central office brief?
  Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady has made a point on which it is worth reflecting. With regard to what the electorate believe, we know what the electorate did in the last general election and what they will certainly do in the next one. The fact is that reductions in NICs outweigh the higher cost of SSP and improvements in maternity pay which may come about through the EC pregnant workers directive.
  I want now to consider specifically the small business situation. At present, any employer whose NIC liability is £16,000 or less—with, say, 10 or fewer employees— can recover 100 per cent. of SSP paid to an employee after the first six weeks of sickness. In effect, that means that raising the threshold to £20,000 is way ahead of inflation. Also, the reimbursement period is cut from six weeks to four weeks.
  Two thirds of employees—about 750,000—will be helped. That is an increase of 50,000 employees. All small firms with average levels of sickness will benefit overall. To sum up, there will be 100 per cent. reimbursement for small companies with average sickness rates and where absences are in excess of four weeks.
  I particularly wish to comment on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the establishment of the working group which includes Department of Social Security officials, employers and employers' organisations to remove or ease the administrative burdens of the SSP. Its review will be completed in April 1994, as part of the Government's resolute determination to reduce red tape and bureaucracy wherever it is found.
  At the heart of the matter is the question: can companies be encouraged to manage absenteeism and sickness better? In the Financial Times of 8 December, Angela Baron, a policy adviser at the Institute of Personnel Management, said:
  "The experience of companies that have started monitoring sickness absence is that the very fact that they have started paying attention to it is enough to reduce the absence rates in their companies."
  That is an extremely important point. In practice, most big companies top up statutory sick pay in different ways.
  1140
  Some companies have introduced a number of measures and bonus schemes to attempt to reduce absenteeism further.
  Iveco Ford in Slough did that. Its absence level of 7 per cent. is now down to 2·8 per cent. In 1986, Vauxhall had sickness absenteeism of 8·8 per cent. Today it is down to 4·5 per cent. That was after the company introduced a negotiated incentive scheme which saved employees £4 a week in contributions to the company's sick pay scheme if average levels of sick pay could be kept below 5 per cent. Rover, a great jewel in the manufacturing crown of this country, introduced a return-to-work interview scheme for staff who were frequently off, and it cut absenteeism by no less than half in the past three years.
  Those are practical examples of successful management of absenteeism, and they have had an enormous impact on reducing costs to companies. After all, such companies provide employment in this country, and that is partly why companies such as Rover are doing so well capturing markets and are able to provide yet more employment, compared with other companies in Europe.
  Can a change in statutory sick pay have even more dramatic effects? There is an extremely interesting example in Sweden. Opposition Members used frequently to cite Sweden as a great example of a model social welfare state. One has only to look at the implosion of the Swedish economy, its rapidly rising unemployment, and the collapse of national morale to see that the social welfare state grew so fast that it literally grew out of control.
  Earlier this year, Sweden reformed its sick pay arrangements. For the first time, the payment for an employee for the first two weeks off work had to be borne by the employer. A curious thing happened early in November. The flu vaccine in Sweden ran out, not because of a flu epidemic but because employers saw the wisdom of taking preventative action in the face of a possible epidemic. Swedish companies have taken those steps to try to keep down sick pay costs. No doubt Sweden's soaring unemployment has much to do with that and has played its part, but, in three years, absenteeism has fallen in that country, from three out of 10 workers being on sick pay at any given time to fewer than one in 10 today. That is a remarkable success story of good management which has led to advantageous results for the Swedish economy.
  The motivation of people to make the best of their jobs is at the heart of any business enterprise. Of course, motivation is more likely to be in the private sector than in the public sector. It is worth noting that, on average, sickness absence rates are a quarter higher in the public sector than in the private sector.
  I particularly welcome the abolition, in April 1995, of the lower rate of SSP. That will be worth £3·70 a week to the lower paid. That harmonisation will remove the time-consuming exercise of establishing whether an employee's average weekly earnings entitle him to the lower or the standard rate of SSP. There will be only one rate, and that will further reduce bureaucracy and administrative burdens. Administration will be cheaper and the system will be easier to understand. Of course, lower-paid employees are less likely to be covered by occupational schemes.
  The Bill gives employers an incentive to improve further the health of their staff, while protecting smaller businesses more generously. I very much welcome the Bill.
  8.5 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his use of the word "reverist". It will entitle him to some toys for children in his constituency. I hope that, if I use the word "victrix" in the same way, I will be able to join him in that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady was probably not present when Madam Speaker expressed her views about that matter. She was not very happy about such practices in the Chamber. If the hon. Lady would refrain from making such comments, I would be more than grateful.
  Mrs. Prentice: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was not present when Madam Speaker made that comment.
  The hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) seemed to advocate movement towards a 35-hour week. I was most impressed that Conservative Members were beginning to think that such flexibility in working arrangements might be considered. However, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds implied that nurses, for example, seem to be less well motivated than car workers. He implied that people doing such public service jobs are more likely to be absent, deliberately miss work and generally have no incentive to do the quality of work that we know that they do.
  Statutory sick pay is not a giveaway—it is not easily obtained. It is a benefit to be received only if a person is sick or disabled and is unable to work as a result. We obtained the impression from Conservative Members that it is a skivers charter. We also know that people on poverty wages do not even qualify for it.
  I should like to think that society is at a stage at which we should be working with employers and employees to enhance the world of work rather than to denigrate it, and that we should not make matters more difficult for employers but give them more help and opportunities to expand their work forces. The essence of the Bill contradicts what the Government say is their policy for business and employers. Indeed, they freely admit that it will cost employers at least £100 million. We have figures to suggest that it will be considerably more than that.
  The Confederation of British Industry thinks that the measure is a fundamental breach of the partnership agreement between the state and employers delivering a vital social security benefit. That is what statutory sick pay is about. There is a responsibility on the Government, in favour of the citizens of this country, that they ensure that proper statutory sick pay is available to all. The Bill is really about the Government reneging on that policy and on their responsibility to govern and protect communities and individuals, and to act in a responsible and civilised manner.
  Mr. Spring: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the CBI is opposed overall to the Bill?
  Mrs. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have disputed the position that the Government have taken with regard to the CBI, which is not at all happy with the Bill. The so-called support from the CBI which we heard about from Government Members is a contorted view of what the CBI believes.
  1142
  The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that there was no evidence that the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991 —and, he implied, this Bill—involved discrimination against people who may be off work through illness. I do not know why the Secretary of State has come to that conclusion. At least he does not go as far as the brief from central office, which says that evidence shows that the Labour party got it wrong when in 1991 we predicted increased discrimination.
  Let me tell hon. Members that citizens advice bureaux totally and absolutely refute the Secretary of State's position. They are extremely concerned that employers will dismiss sick people as a result of the Bill. We know already of many employees who do not receive the full amount of statutory sick pay, and some who do not receive any at all. The CAB gives examples, such as a client in the west midlands who said that his employer's policy is to issue written warnings for certified absence during sickness. In Avon, a client on sick leave was paid less than the full amount and was told by her supervisor after six weeks off sick that she was to be made redundant and that someone was already doing her job. The CAB provides several other examples.
  If the Secretary of State believes that people are not discriminated against as result of being ill, he is not in the world of reality and he does not know what life is really like for employees.
  The Government also say that they want to increase occupational sick pay schemes, yet both the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses believe that the abolition of reimbursement will limit the ability of employers to provide occupational sick pay schemes. There, yet again, is a contradiction of the Government's policy.
  The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) talked about the removal of the administrative burden. The Federation of Small Businesses seems to think something quite different. Its says that, despite the fact that the transfer of sick pay will take place, the administrative record-keeping will still have to go on. Firms must still provide sickness records, and all of the paperwork which is attached to them. They will still be expected to deal with self-certification notes, waiting days, periods of incapacity for work calculations and so on. Firms will still be subject also to Department of Social Security inspections. The federation believes that the administrative burden will not be reduced as a result of the Bill.
  Mr. Heald: The point that I was making was that the complete removal of the administrative burden for large employers will be of great benefit to them. I accept entirely that, as far as small businesses are concerned, that has not been removed.
  I hope that the review body will be able to cut that administrative burden further. The hon. Lady should not think that I said that small businesses would be better off in that particular way—I did not.
  Mrs. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman may have attempted to clarify his speech which was delivered in a fog earlier in the evening. He lives in hope that the review body might do something about it. He should recognise, as others have, that every time the Government set up such a review body, our hopes do not triumph over experience. We do not expect a considerable improvement as a result of the review body.

  1143
  The Conservative party believes itself to be the party of businesses, big and small. Tonight, through the Bill, it has reneged on its commitments to both. It has reneged on its commitments to reimburse employers, as it had promised in previous years. It has reneged on its commitment to support small businesses, because those businesses will tell anyone that the five week period is of little use to them, because most of their work force would have returned to work in a shorter period. It has reneged on its commitment to remove the burden from business.
  The Conservative party cannot even get the business organisations to give their whole-hearted support to the Bill. Those of us who believe in a partnership between Government, employers and employees can do no better than to thoroughly oppose the Bill.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sorry that I missed part of the speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), because I was out of the Chamber making inquiries. I declare an interest as I am a small employer. I may declare a further interest of a different sort in that I was fortunate to be winner of the Helping Hands award last year from the Federation of Small Businesses.
  While I was out of the Chamber, I took the opportunity to check on what was said during the debate on 28 November 1990, when the House debated the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. I noticed that I welcomed the Bill then, and I said that I thought that the interests of small firms should be considered. I shall quote a sentence which I picked out:
  "I support the Bill as whole, but I should like to be assured that there will be full consultation before there are any more changes. Those consultations should be with representatives of smaller firms and with industries that are affected by the Bill." —[Official Report, 28 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 893.]
  Of course the Bill went to the other place, where amendments were made, including the removal of what was known as the "Henry VIII clause". The amendment which helps small businesses was introduced in the other place.
  I notice that the briefing that has been issued by the Federation of Small Businesses does not entirely welcome the Bill. However, I wonder whether it has picked up on all of the points that the Government have introduced. It seems that the Government have paid particular attention this time to the interests of small firms. In reading the brief from the federation, it seems that it has not picked up the extent to which small firms will benefit from the change from six weeks to four weeks during which employers are liable before they get full compensation.
  The Government have paid attention to the needs of small firms. That was the issue the last time we debated it, and it is still the issue now, although we have gone all the way to 100 per cent. payments by employers. The Government have made the right decision, although it may not be immediately welcome by all employers. The Government have, in effect, decentralised decision-making so that the amount of money provided by the Treasury can be allocated to those who need to draw sick pay benefit through the medium of employers. Those employers are able to make a much better judgment than anyone in the Government will ever be able to as to what the circumstances of each case are. Reducing national
  1144
  insurance contributions by 0·2 per cent. will amount to very nearly £1 billion which the Government have ensured will not burden employers.
  While listening to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I had difficulty in understanding what the Opposition are opposing. It almost seemed as if the hon. Gentleman was trying to argue the case for the employers, which seemed to come strangely from a party which imposed a jobs tax when it was last in power. The rate of national insurance contributions was 13·5 per cent. when the Labour party was last in power. Was not that the best part of a jobs tax?
  It seems strange that the Labour party should now try to argue that it is looking at the situation from the point of view of industry. When it was in power, the Labour party did its utmost to tax jobs out of existence. I still have the greatest difficulty in understanding why the Opposition are opposing the Bill, and I have heard no argument from Opposition Members which would explain. It is just a knee-jerk reaction—as the Government are doing what is perfectly sensible, the Opposition will oppose it for whatever reason. I do not know whether we will hear any arguments from the Opposition which will stand up. I have not heard anything from Opposition Members worthy of interest. The most interesting points were made by Conservative Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) spoke about the importance of reducing the administrative burden on firms. The Bill will make a small contribution to that by relieving employers of having to go through the process of reclaiming the 80 per cent. However, employers still have a great deal of record keeping.
  The fact that benefit is available for 28 weeks and is paid straight into an employee's bank account makes it easier for the payments to continue. When the Labour party was in power, it was much more difficult as people had to go to the benefit office to get their sick pay. The arrangements are now easier which may make it difficult for employers to judge the circumstances of an absent employee.
  When we debated the issue previously, I spoke about the construction industry. I do know know whether my right hon. Friend will be able to say whether there has been any consultation with that industry.
  The Electrical Contractors Association is concerned that employers will be more likely to take on 714s—the self-employed—because the traditional role of the Electrical Contractors Association as a self-regulatory body will be destroyed if more and more people become self-employed.
  There is concern among the ECA and other construction industries that the Government's measures may lead to more people becoming self-employed. It would be nice to be reassured that the Government have considered that point of view and will consult fully with representatives from smaller firms. There may be an opportunity to participate later in the debate, but that is all I want to say now.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Adam Ingram: This has been an interesting debate that is worth setting in its historical context. I hope that it will be recognised that it is no exaggeration to say that what Lloyd George started on 4

  1145
  May 1911 when he moved the National Insurance Bill was ended on 30 November 1993 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  We are debating the effective end to state participation in a social welfar benefit pioneered and brought into law by the National Insurance Act 1911. In its historical context, that Bill was the most important involvement by the state in social health care until the creation of the national health service in 1948 under a Labour Government. If the measure goes through tonight, as it undoubtedly will, it will be confining 82 years of state welfare provision to the dustbin of history.
  That is all part of the Government's programme to dismantle the welfare state. It is the beginning, not the end, of a process and I hope that, as Conservative Members troop through the Lobby, they are aware of what they are doing. To use an old Scottish saying, "If ye didnae ken before, ye ken noo."
  I turn to the more current historical antecedents of the Bill. When the Statutory Sick Pay Bill passed through the House in November 1990, hon. Members on both sides expressed fears that the reduction in reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. would be the thin end of the wedge—the beginning of a steady decline in the Government's contribution to national sick pay costs. It was one of those all too familiar phrases. The Secretary of State of the time assured the House that the Conservative Government had no plans to make further changes. We have become accustomed to such assurances. At the last election, the Prime Minister told the electorate that there were no plans to increase the scope of VAT or national insurance contributions. We know what has happened to those promises—even if they were made, in the immortal words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a wet night in Dudley.
  The Labour party and the country at large now know that, when Ministers say that they have no plans to do something, they mean exactly the opposite. We have learnt to read between the lines. [Interruption.] Read my lips, as one of my hon. Friends said from a sedentary position.
  There is a certain uniqueness about the debate. I cannot recollect a time when every major business organisation has universally condemned a Government measure. The views of industry are remarkably consistent—that is, consistently opposed.
  Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors—not an organisation which Labour Members would normally call in aid—described it as
  "imposing a heavy compliance burden on employers".
  The CBI has been quoted earlier in the debate. It said that
  "as a matter of principle"
  it opposed
  "loading these costs onto employers".
  The Federation of Small Businesses called it a
  "Bill which will prove damaging to many small businesses and their employees".
  It also accused the Government of having
  "reneged on their earlier commitments regarding statutory sick pay".
  The Forum of Private Business—another organisation which it is unusual for Labour Members to quote in support of their arguments—has lambasted the Bill by saying:
  "The current proposals, if implemented, are likely to become the principal cause of a significant number of insolvencies".
  In recent months we have heard much from Conservative Members about the placing of extra burdens on employers in the midst of the currrent recession. They
  1146
  are really saying that they are against anything which adds to the welfare of the working community. By voting for the measure tonight they are saying that they are in favour of those on-costs which undermine employee welfare.
  There is no disputing the extra costs being imposed on industry. They have been accepted as £695 million next year and £750 million the year after. Those costs pose the threat of company closures and further job losses. It is a strange and perverse way to assist companies trying to fight their way out of a Government-created recession. We know that large companies will suffer as they have to meet the full costs of all their sick pay provision. We were led to believe that the Secretary of State had spared struggling small companies from a similar fate.
  In his statement to the House, the Secretary of State said:
  "I propose to abolish reimbursement, except to small employers".
  He went on to say that he intended to
  "increase the help to small employers".—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
  Those were disingenuous words.
  Under the old rules small employers had to meet just 20 per cent. of the costs of statutory sick pay for the first weeks; they will now have to meet 100 per cent. of the costs for the first four weeks. Last night the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) muttered in a loud voice, "Is that true?" When it was pointed out that it was true, he buried his head in a copy of Hansard and rapidly left the Chamber. That it is why he is not here tonight.
  When the Secretary of State was presenting the measures to the House, he conveniently ignored the fact that the introduction of full reimbursement to small employers would be of little assistance in more than 70 per cent. of the cases as the vast majority of employees are fit to return to work well within four weeks. If the Secretary of State has any doubts about that, let me draw attention to the words of his predecessor:
  "The average spell of sickness is probably about three weeks".—[Official Report, 29 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 639.]
  The extension of small employers' relief will apply to fewer than a quarter of the cases where sickness benefit is payable. As a direct consequence, all business will suffer.
  The Forum of Private Business was perfectly correct to describe small business relief as "fundamentally flawed". The Bill will exacerbate already difficult cash flow problems.
  As the Federation of Small Businesses points out,
  'The compensating national insurance contribution reduction to employers will only give a nominal weekly or monthly rebate whereas a high incidence of sick leave must be paid in the week or month in which it occurs."
  As I said, small businesses will be acutely affected. For them, a short period of illness among two or three staff will have a proportionately greater impact on costs. A small firm with 10 employees could easily have to manage without 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of its staff as a result of a flu epidemic. As most of them may return to work before the four-week cut-off point, the small company would bear all the costs. It is unlikely that a company of 1,000 employees would suffer an equivalent percentage of staff being absent through sickness at any one time.
  Ministers may continue to stress the compensatory reduction in national insurance reductions —but if they claim that the direct financial cost to businesses will be almost totally offset by corresponding cuts in employer

  1147
  NICs, what is the point of the Bill? The claim that businesses need the incentive of cutting sick pay entitlement is entirely without foundation. The CBI states:
  "Incentives to reduce the cost of sickness absence are not necessary in the private sector, where lost productivity provides sufficient incentive."
  The CBI is saying that the legislation will have an effect that industry does not want. The CBI also sought assurances that the Bill is not simply the first step on the road of shifting the burden of legislated social costs on to employers.
  Bearing in mind the broken promises of previous Secretaries of State, I repeat the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Will the Minister guarantee that he will not transfer in future the cost of statutory maternity pay or industrial injury benefits to employers? When my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden asked those questions, there was no response, so I ask them again.
  Ministers have achieved a double whammy of pitfalls, with the Bill creating both an employment trap and a business expansion trap. The £20,000 national insurance contribution all-or-nothing threshold will discourage entrepreneurs from expanding business capacity and taking on more employees. The last thing that business needs at present are further disincentives to increase employment. The Bill's effect on employment prospects is clear.
  The greatest impact of this mean-minded Bill will be on those already facing discrimination in the labour market. Instead of legislating to help them and those least likely to have occupational sick pay provision, the Government will increase discrimination at the point of recruitment against the potentially sick and disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made a particularly valid point on that and other issues.
  That has happened since the rebate was reduced in 1991 from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux amassed evidence showing that the number of employers refusing to honour statutory sick-pay entitlement, paying any sick pay or threatening redundancy or dismissal has increased. Such unofficial practices are a symptom of the vulnerability of employees when jobs are scarce. The Bill will impose even more financial pressure on employers and encourage the spread of bad employment practices.
  The Institute of Directors is another organisation to which we seldom refer in argument, but its spokesperson stated:
  "Parliament has decided that sick pay is a social benefit, but the Government is trying to make employers bear the cost of providing it. That may well harm the employment prospects of people with pre-existing medical conditions. They should not be penalised because they are disabled or sick—but the Government is making them uncompetitive in the labour market."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) made a similar point.
  During the debate on yesterday's outrageous guillotine motion, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People referred to the report awaited from the Public Accounts Committee on the impact of the 1991 statutory sick pay changes. He had no basis on which to assert that the report's content would support his arguments. In fact, he told the House that he had not even read the report, but still prayed it in aid. That demonstrates that a crucial body
  1148
  of available evidence that could have provided substance for this debate has been ignored in the Government's haste to pass the Bill.
  I suspect that the report does not support the Government's case, which is why the guillotine was introduced. The Government want to get the Bill away before the PAC report undermines their case even further.
  I would like to make a number of other points, but we shall begin another debate later this evening, so I now ask the Minister to respond to the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, which I repeated. We await his answers.
  8.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): This has been an interesting and varied debate, in which a large number of points were raised. We heard the first speech from the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) as a member of the Opposition Front Bench, to which I welcome him. I look forward to many more exchanges with the hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box.
  I have never heard a debate in which so many Opposition Members quoted business organisations, prayed them in aid, and recited Confederation of British Industry briefs and other documents. That is a hazardous tactic when the CBI concluded that
  "the CBI does not wish to oppose the SSP Bill."
  It is equally hazardous to pray in aid the Institute of Directors, because we are informed that it would welcome the SSP and national insurance changes overall, provided that the Government are prepared to mount a fundamental review of the SSP scheme's compliance burden on business. I am happy to confirm that we will look at that scheme in conjunction with employers, to determine the scope for cutting red tape without affecting employees' rights. We will consider also whether firms offering generous occupational sick pay could opt out of the SSP sick scheme. Quoting employers is a dangerous tactic for Opposition Members.
  Mr. Mandelson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I want to develop these points, because I was asked a number of questions. I will give way in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about the European equal treatment directive. The reason why women must be entitled to SSP until they are 65 is that, once reimbursement is abolished, SSP will become a form of pay and, therefore, outside the scope of the pension age derogation from the EC equal treatment directive. Retirement pension, however, will still be a benefit and thus still subject to the derogation. It will still be possible to pay retirement pension on a different age basis to women and men and there should be no scope for legal doubt about that. We do not expect any of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman described.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) appeared to be under a number of misapprehensions. She spoke of the payments that people have made over many years to the national insurance fund, but statutory sick pay is not a national insurance benefit and so is not met by that fund. I wonder whether the calculation she cited, provided by a small business in her constituency, took account of reductions in national insurance contributions that are part and parcel of the policy and of considerable benefit to

  1149
  businesses of all sizes. The most damning quotation that the hon. Lady could give in respect of large businesses was that IBM is "looking into the measures". She says that the policy is to get the Government out of a public sector borrowing requirement hole, but the policy does not reduce the PSBR, because the reduction in national insurance contributions more than offsets the reduction in statutory sick pay.
  Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman's argument relies on the assumption that the compensating decrease in national insurance contributions will remain just that—decreased. Will he take this opportunity to give a firm and unequivocal undertaking to the House that that compensating decrease will not under any circumstances be reversed in future years? If he were not to do so, his remarks would appear extremely hollow.
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Member knows that neither the Government nor the Opposition are likely to give commitments about the future level of national insurance contributions. We can, however, point very clearly to our record on employers' national insurance contributions, which for lower-paid employees will be 3.6 per cent. after the change, compared with 13.5 per cent. in 1979. Any employer who is concerned about that has to do no more than consider the record of each party in office to see what is most likely to happen.
  Mr. Dewar: Employers may well be unnecessarily suspicious, but the Minister must accept that the prospect causes them to look forward with fear. The other aspect is the argument made by the Confederation of British Industry and various other organisations about the likely shift of other benefits on to the employer. Industrial injury benefit has been especially canvassed, as has maternity benefit. Can he perhaps help us on that subject, by telling us that there are no plans, and no intention, to move further down that road?
  Mr. Hague: I recognise that the hon. Member, in his speech as well as his intervention, would prefer to argue against changes that he imagines and foresees rather than against the Bill. This is the Second Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. That is the subject of our debate. It may help the Opposition to tilt at all types of targets that have not been presented to them, but those targets are not on offer this evening; I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) asked for an assurance about complexity and I can give him the same assurance that I gave a few moments ago; we will discuss with employers the further scope for cutting red tape.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned a number of issues. He especially mentioned the construction industry and asked whether such an industry would be placed at a particular disadvantage. The construction industry has an average of about 3 per cent. of employees claiming statutory sick pay, so it is most unlikely to be disadvantaged in any way. In fact, it should be a net beneficiary of the change in statutory sick pay and national insurance contributions if one takes them together.
  The hon. Member for Burnley also asked how the Government will ensure that employees are getting their proper entitlement, and whether there are a large number of cases in which they are not. The abolition of SSP
  1150
  reimbursement will have no effect on an employees' entitlement to SSP, but, should a dispute arise between an employee and his or her employer about entitlement, it can be resolved by adjudication procedures.
  Where an employer fails to comply with a decision of the adjudicating authorities within the prescribed time and does not appeal, the Secretary of State will assume responsibility for payment, and legal proceedings against the employer will be considered for his non-payment. Inspectors of the Contributions Agency already operate a system of spot-checking of employers' pay records and that will continue. Officials have discussed with the Trades Union Congress the possibility of displaying a new poster in workplaces, reminding employees of their rights. The design and wording of a poster, together with a leaflet, are being evaluated.
  A great deal is being done, therefore, and a great deal of redress is available to employees who think that they may be entitled to statutory sick pay, but are not receiving it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) rightly pointed to the experience of London boroughs in reducing, when they made an effort to do so, the average number of days of absence through sickness in three years from 17 days on average to 11·5. He drew attention—also quite rightly—to the Financial Times article of 8 December, only a week ago, which listed a large number of companies that have taken the initiative, have tried to reduce sickness levels in their companies and have had tremendous success in doing so.
  To quote one example from the article,
  "Vauxhall, the UK car maker, has reduced its sickness absenteeism from 8·8 per cent. in 1986 to 4·5 per cent. today. This was after the company introduced a negotiated incentive scheme which saved employees about £4 a week in contributions to the company sick pay scheme if average levels of sick leave could be kept at or below 5 per cent."
  The article points out:
  "Many factors underlie improved absence records, but whether it is knowing that someone in management cares or fearing that they are watching, both approaches seem more effective than the alternative of managerial neglect."
  It is managerial neglect of the issue which we are tackling with the Bill. Opposition Members have underestimated the difference that can be made by giving employers an incentive to tackle the problem. It may seem a trivial example, but what happened in Sweden, that paradise of social provision, when they abolished state sick pay for the first two weeks of sickness? Did employers then say, "We are going to sack people who are ill for a short time"? They actually ran out of influenza vaccine in Sweden because employers went on such a campaign of immunising their employees against sickness.
  A great deal can be done by employers to help with the health of their employees and a great deal more is being done by some employers. That should be recognised by Opposition Members.
  I have already referred to the fact that the CBI says in its much-quoted brief that it does not wish to oppose the Bill. The problem for the hon. Member for Garscadden and his colleagues tonight was that they did not wish to oppose the Bill, but felt that they ought to do so. He said at one point in his speech, when my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willets) had intervened, that he feared that he would go off the road and into a field. When one listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, one found that, first, he had a principal fear that people might be squeezed from their benefits, but he also feared that we might make the

  1151
  scheme more generous for employees and that employers would have to pay more. He said that at first he was afraid that there was a major transfer of costs to employers, but then realised that there was not. He said that he accepted that sickness absence figures were not good and ought to be improved, but he failed to offer any alternative.
  It was rather less like going off a road and into a field than going round an endlessly confusing roundabout, with many signals pointing in different directions and with the hon. Gentleman at the wheel of the car, careering around the roundabout, peering into the distance, looking for something that would come over the horizon which would present a more attractive target than the Bill before the House at the time. He ought to reflect on some of his comments in that speech.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Hague: I have only three minutes left, so I think that I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is an opportunity to improve the sickness record of industry; it is an opportunity to clarify responsibility for sickness rates; it is an opportunity to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the future; it is an opportunity to reduce the overall total and burden of public expenditure; it is an opportunity to reduce industry's costs through a major offsetting reduction in national insurance contributions, a reduction to a level which a Labour Government could never have contemplated and which, for low-paid employees, is a fraction of the levels under a Labour Government.
  After this change, when the employee's and employer's contributions are added together, the national insurance contribution payable for an employee on a weekly wage of £130 will be £15·72. It would have amounted to £26 a week in 1979. That is a dramatic reduction.
  What is the attitude of the Opposition to this proposal? Blindly to oppose, without having a better proposal—without any proposal—to put before the House. They are not doing so in the interests of employees, because their sickness payments will be maintained, or in the interests of the disabled, because they have a better than average sickness record, or in the interests of small businesses, because they will be better off, and they are not doing it in the interests of well-managed, large businesses because they have a great opportunity to reduce their sickness rates.
  In this debate, the Opposition have been reduced to being the defenders of weak, complacent and inefficient management—the only people who stand to gain from their attitude. Perhaps, after their performance with parliamentary procedures during the past two weeks, they identify to a certain extent with weak and inefficient management and that is why they have taken that stance tonight. I urge all my hon. Friends to support the Second Reading.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order yesterday.
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 268.

  Division No. 43]

  [8.50 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Alexander, Richard

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  1152

  Amess, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Faber, David

  Ashby, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  1153

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sackville, Tom

  Legg, Barry

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luff, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Madel, David

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat, Iain

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Malone, Gerald

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Stephen, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Streeter, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Sykes, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thomason, Roy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Needham, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trotter, Neville

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Viggers, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Page, Richard

  Walden, George

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waller, Gary

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas, (Macc'f'ld)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. James Arbuthnot

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Alton, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  1154

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foulkes, George

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fraser, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barron, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  Battle, John

  Garrett, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  George, Bruce

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benton, Joe

  Gould, Bryan

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boateng, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Gunnell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hain, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hanson, David

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cann, Jamie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'Stead)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Janner, Greville

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCrea, Rev William

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Enright, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Flynn, Paul

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  1155

  Mahon, Alice

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Salmond, Alex

  Maxton, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michael, Alun

  Short, Clare

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Simpson, Alan

  Milburn, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spellar, John

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Paul

  Stevenson, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Straw, Jack

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, William

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tipping, Paddy

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  Parry, Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Patchett, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter L.

  Walley, Joan

  Pope, Greg

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Watson, Mike

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prescott, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Winnick, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wise, Audrey

  Redmond, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Alan Meale

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second Time and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order yesterday.
  [MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair.]

  Division No. 44]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Devlin, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bowis, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brandreth, Gyles

  French, Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fry, Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butcher, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Butterfill, John

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clappison, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Harris, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Congdon, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Conway, Derek

  Heald, Oliver

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cran, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

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

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Horam, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  1169

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sheresby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sykes, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Thomason, Roy

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

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

  Merchant, Piers

  Tracey, Richard

  Milligan, Stephen

  Tredinnick, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Viggers, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Needham, Richard

  Walden, George

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Ward, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Watts, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Paice, James

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  1170

  Wilkinson, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Mr. Sydney, Chapman and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainger, Nick

  Donohoe, Brain H.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dowd, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton, Joe

  Enright, Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Barron, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Battle, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bayley, Hugh

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Beggs, Roy

  Flynn, Paul

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Fraser, John

  Benton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gapes, Mike

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Garrett, John

  Betts, Clive

  George, Bruce

  Blair, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blunkett, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boateng, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Boyes, Roland

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Graham, Thomas

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

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, Stephen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hardy, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cann, Jamie

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jowell, Tessa

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

  Keen, Alan

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  1171

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Leighton, Ron

  Randall, Stuart

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lewis, Terry

  Redmond, Martin

  Litherland, Robert

  Reid, Dr John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rendel, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rogers, Allan

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCartney, Ian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKelvey, William

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  McLeish, Henry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McMaster, Gordon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Clare

  McWilliam, John

  Simpson, Alan

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mandelson, Peter

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Tyler, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mudie, George

  Walley, Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Welsh, Andrew

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Olner, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Worthington, Tony

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pope, Greg

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill
    Clause 1

      RESTRICTION OF EMPLOYERS' RIGHT OF RECOVERY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      9.4 pm
      Mr. Keith Bradley: As you know, Mr. Lofthouse, normally after Second Reading we should reflect quietly on the Minister's views and on his response to the many excellent contributions made and pertinent points raised during the debate. Then we should be able to go in good order into Committee—we would have expected that to take place some time after Christmas
      1156
      —which would have given us the opportunity to consider the clauses in great detail and to move suitable amendments.
      It is with great regret that, because the Government are forcing the Bill through with such haste, we are now having to reflect quickly on what was said on Second Reading and move straight on to the Committee stage.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the Bill has been framed so as to make it effectively a one-clause Bill. To ensure that we can continue to debate in the same constructive way as we debated Second Reading, we have chosen to discuss clause stand part immediately, so that we can pursue some of the crucial questions that were raised on Second Reading but were not well answered by the Government.
      The Under-Secretary of State gave an interesting winding-up speech, in which he chose to denigrate the many organisations that oppose the Bill, describing them in the unique phrase "inefficient management". That is how he regards the collective experience of the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of which were extensively quoted on Second Reading.
      For example, we heard how Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors said that the Bill would impose
      "a heavy compliance burden on employers".
      The fact that the Under-Secretary of State said that that was a quotation from an organisation representing inefficient management will be well noted by all the organisations of which he chose to speak in those terms.
      It is clear from all the representations that my hon. Friends and I have received from small and large businesses throughout the country that there is great anxiety about the Bill. As the CBI has said, it poses fundamental questions about who shall bear the cost of social security provision. On clause stand part, we shall pursue that line of argument.
      As we have heard, the Bill transfers a burden of £750 million on to small businesses. Much has been made of the compensation, through the reduction by regulation of the national insurance contribution, but—I am sure that this is what lies behind much of the anxiety of the many organisations that represent business—no one knows what the future may hold.
      It is especially relevant that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who asked about future increases in national insurance, the Minister could not give any assurance that, in future years, more national insurance burdens would not be placed back on small businesses. Not only do they have the burden of paying sick pay, but there is no guarantee that in future additional burdens will not be placed on them.
      We already have evidence to suggest that, when the rebate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent., many representations were made through the National Audit Office. The National Audit Office report "Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay" of January 1993 said:
      "Some employers and organisations representing them told the National Audit Office that they believed the 1991 changes to the Statutory Sick Pay scheme had increased employers costs".
      Their anxieties and fears about the future are well-founded.
      It was also interesting to note that, when pressed for guarantees about the future impositions on small businesses—especially having to pay for maternity pay

      1157
      and also for industrial injuries—again the Minister could give no assurance whatever that those businesses would not be expected to bear those burdens.
      All those worries which have been expressed through the various organisations are the key to why we are right to press for more clear answers on the clause stand part debate. Would there be extra burdens on the business community as a result of transferring the burden of other benefits? Would the Minister give an assurance about the possible extra costs through the national insurance scheme? When the Minister has a second bite of the cherry in winding up, perhaps he will give clearer answers to those questions.
      When we were looking through the Second Reading debate, it became clear that there would be a real cost to small employers. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor gave the impression that there would be no cost to small employers. However, in his statement on the uprating of benefit, the Secretary of State told the House:
      "From April next year, I propose to abolish reimbursement, except to small employers … So far, we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay for absences of longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks." —[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
      It is clear from the evidence of relief to small firms that there would be a real burden on them during that four-week period. Evidence shows that three quarters of sick leave cases are shorter than four weeks, so the full costs would have to be borne by those small businesses. They would lose and not be fully compensated by the proposed scheme.
      The effect on a company of few employees that are struck down by illness is important to consider. We have already heard whether Peking flu does or does not hit employers. Judging from how many constituents have been laid low recently, my hon. Friends and I know of the devastating impact that such illnesses can have on small businesses. I have my own bitter experience: I recently moved house and employed builders to carry out some renovation work. Since all the builders were struck down with flu, improvements have been dramatically delayed. I hope that they will be finished by Christmas, but I digress.
      One of the crucial issues that need to be explored in more detail is the vulnerability of emloyees. In his opening remarks on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that there was no evidence at all that vulnerable groups of people, especially people with disabilities, would in any way be disadvantaged by the changes in sick pay legislation.
      I beg to differ. There is a mound of evidence to support the alternative view that employers look closely at sickness records and the potential sickness of people before they employ them. Millions of people who are at work would be affected by that change. Three million people looking for work at the moment would have to face the fact that employers will obviously take on those who have not been ill recently.
      The legislation will mean that thousands of people who are capable of work but not in perfect health will fall into a trap between invalidity benefit and work. They cannot get work because they have poor health, but they cannot get benefit because they are not judged sick enough to be unable to work.
      In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
      "companies would have a much sharper incentive to improve their management of sick leave and to take a greater interest in the health of their employees."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 926.]
      1158
      Although we welcome any improvement in the management of sick pay, in practice it means that employers will look more carefully at the health record of potential employees. People with genuine health problems who also have the ability and need to work may be overlooked because of the imposition of sick pay.
      A great deal of evidence has already been brought to hon. Members' attention in reports such as that undertaken by the citizens advice bureaux. That report shows that, far from caring for their employees' health, employers are now more likely to dismiss workers who fall sick. They may also be deterred from recruiting people who are more likely to require time off due to illness.
      On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that there was no evidence to support such claims. I urge him to read the excellent report produced by the citizens advice bureaux—he may then become more knowledgable about the real practices of employers, instead of relying on some rather dubious claims.
      9.15 pm
      Although this is a clause stand part debate, it is important to consider the interrelationship between sick pay and the changes that will be made to disability benefits, especially the proposed introduction of the incapacity benefit. In determining incapacity benefit, a far more draconian set of considerations, questionnaires and assessments will be used than was the case for invalidity benefit.
      The number of people who may be entitled to incapacity benefit will be limited and, at the same time, employers will examine sickness and health records more carefully before taking on employees. At a time of very high unemployment, it is clear that employers have that choice, and that is the way in which they will proceed.
      Let us consider a recent survey of employers' attitudes undertaken by Sussex university. It covered 1,000 organisations and showed the damaging impact of the myth that is often propagated and used by employers, that disabled people are likely to be less productive and have bad sickness records. According to the study, 10 per cent. of employers were worried about the sickness levels of disabled people, without any evidence to back their arguments, and despite all the evidence to the contrary.
      In fact, 93 per cent. of people questioned in a study in Devon showed that disabled workers performed better than able-bodied workers; 43 per cent. of those questioned reported that disabled workers' attitude to work was better, and 55 per cent. rated it equally; 70 per cent. rated disabled workers' attendance as equally good, and 26 per cent. rated it higher. There are a great many myths about disabled people, and the legislation, coupled with the new provisions for the incapacity benefit, may reinforce them and make it even more difficult for disabled people to obtain work.
      When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give an assurance not only that he will consider those studies and the way in which sick pay legislation is enforced but that, before introducing the new proposals on the incapacity benefit, and before rigidly drawing up the criteria on which that benefit will be paid, he will take into account the views that I have described and incorporate them into the system.
      If he does not, we shall create a tranche of people who are perceived by employers to be too sick to work but not sick enough by the Government's standards to receive

      1159
      incapacity benefit. That could cause great distress and anxiety to thousands—if not millions—of potential workers.
      The Government should not only monitor those issues but consider whether some outside body, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission, should undertake independent research. The Equal Opportunities Commission is justifiably well respected by the Government, and it may be appropriate for it, or an alternative body, to report to Parliament. We could then be satisfied that these issues are being properly addressed, and that employers are not using bad operational practices to limit the number of people with health problems who are taken on.
      On Second Reading, one of the crucial issues was the changing of the words "over pensionable age" to "over the age of 65", and how that would work in practice. Women in particular are anxious to know whether they will be able to claim sick pay, which becomes a payment, and a pension, which becomes a benefit. We would welcome a Government assurance on that issue.
      We have debated the way in which the Statutory Sick Pay Bill will operate in practice and how individual employees' rights can be enforced. The Minister, winding up on Second Reading, said that the Government had produced pamphlets and posters to publicise employees' rights, and ensure that they were properly identified.
      According to a report issued by the National Audit Office, in January 1993, that is part of the problem with the Statutory Sick Pay Bill:
      "Employees do not always receive adequate information. They"—
      the DSS—
      "need to consider what more can be done to ensure that people working for such employers are informed about their right under the scheme. There is also evidence that many payments of benefit are inaccurate … Inspectors have consistently found monetary errors in 25 to 30 per cent. of the Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay cases examined".
      While I welcome the fact that the Department is looking at that aspect of the Bill, what mechanisms and staff resources will be employed to ensure that such errors are stamped out, in addition to publicity posters?
      Bad practices also need to be stamped out. Various devices are used by some employers to try to curtail the payment of statutory sick pay, such as dismissal, threats of dismissal and not allowing people proper time off for ill health. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking those issues seriously, and say what action they will take effectively to police the new arrangements?
      Many organisations representing disabled and sick people have contacted us to express their great concerns about the Bill. I hope that the Government will not dismiss such representations lightly, as they have in previous debates on the Bill. These are very serious issues, and we will monitor them closely during the next few months.
      The House should receive an annual report on how the Bill is operating in practice, and that issue could perhaps be discussed when the regulations are introduced. Otherwise, the anxieties will not go away. We shall feel not only that small firms are right to worry about facing greater burdens at a time when they are trying to increase employment and emerge from the recession, but that they are right to fear that further costs—such as maternity pay—are just around the corner. I hope that the Minister will allay many of those fears.
      Mr. George Foulkes: I wish that a proper Standing Committee had been set up to deal with the Bill. I would certainly have volunteered to serve on it and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his excellent Front-Bench team.
      Over the weekend, I spent a good deal of time in my constituency. I had a surgery in Cumnock, and another in Maybole; I visited people in Catrine; I spoke at a meeting in Troon—which, admittedly, is in another hon. Member's constituency—and at another in Ayr. Everyone was outraged by the contempt with which the Government are treating the House of Commons, Parliament and this country's democratic processes. This Bill, and the one that we shall discuss tomorrow, are important and should be dealt with properly in Committee.
      Let me identify some items that should have been discussed in more detail and some of the pitfalls that may befall the Department and the Secretary of State in particular. I have nothing against the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary; indeed, I believe that the Minister of State is one of the longest-serving Ministers in the Government. I have seen him in so many guises that I find it difficult to remember which Department he is in.
      The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office would object to that allegation.
      Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is not quite the father of the Government, but he is quite near it.
      The Secretary of State is very much a hate figure in my constituency. I am glad that he is ultimately responsible for any action taken against the Government in this regard. The other day—I do not know whether I am out of order in saying this, Mr. Lofthouse, but I am sure that you will correct me if I am—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to clause 1 stand part.
      Mr. Foulkes: I was coming to that, Mr. Lofthouse. I just wanted to say that I saw the Secretary of State wearing an Adam Smith Institute tie. When I commented that it gave away his true thinking and position in his party, the right hon. Gentleman said, "No, it does not; I am far to the right of the Adam Smith Institute." That shows the truth of what is happening.
      Practical problems will arise, because the Bill has not been scrutinised properly. We have excellent civil servants, but—with the best will in the world—although all those civil servants and legal draftsmen produce Bills, Parliament is ultimately responsible for scrutinising them. We have constituency experience: people come to our surgeries and raise practical problems. We understand the difficulties and can draw attention to them in the House.
      Let us suppose that an employer challenges the interpretation of part of the Bill in court. As I understand it, normally it has been the practice to refer to proceedings in Committee and to what the Minister said in response to a question from a member or the Opposition spokesman, as being the definitive interpretation of that part of the Bill. We have not gone through the Committee issue by issue,

      1161
      item by item, so it will be vague and difficult to understand exactly what is meant by any aspect if it is challenged in court.
      Another issue that should have been explored is the change in age from 60 to 65 years. There are many potential pitfalls with which the Government have not dealt. I tabled a question the other day about the Greenock judgment in the European Court, its interpretation and whether the judgment would have any effect on that aspect. I received a vague reply from the Minister. I do not think that there is an understanding in the Department about whether there will be a practical effect. Perhaps the Minister will answer that.
      9.30 pm
      Another matter concerns people who work overseas. Increasingly, as we move into what we must now call the European Union, more workers travel overseas. They still work for a British employer and are still on the books in the United Kingdom. We needed to explore particular aspects of that, but we have not had an opportunity to explore them at all.
      Questions were raised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the positive incentive to dismiss workers who are sick. That worries me. I would have enjoyed being on the Committee, especially with my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, who, with his legal brain and penetrating mind, has the facility for getting to the essence of a particular issue.
      I should have liked to explore what would happen if there was a positive incentive —as we think that there is —for employers to say, "Okay, this guy has been off sick too often. We'll dismiss him." Will it alter the ability of a dismissed worker to raise his case at the industrial tribunal? Will it increase or decrease the likelihood of his getting compensation and reinstatement? We should have had the opportunity to explore that matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who has just spoken from the Front Bench, raised the question of employment of disabled people in the Community. Although there is no statutory responsibility in relation to specific numbers, there is a requirement on employers to take on a certain percentage of disabled people. I agree with my hon. Friend that employers will be much more reluctant to take on disabled people and are therefore more likely to be in breach of their statutory responsibilities. That raises all sorts of issues.
      Recently, half a million people with occupational pensions were literally conned into taking out private pensions. That is the sort of thing that can happen. I worry that such examples will be much more prevalent as we move forward with this kind of Bill. It is astonishing, and it comes from the doctrinaire right-wingers, but the Government are absolutely thirled to changing things. They are obsessed with change. They want to alter what has been accepted—in some cases on a bipartisan basis —for years as being the best thing in this country. As a result of those constant changes, there is greater confusion in the public and among employers. Mistakes are much more likely to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington made that point extremely well. When those mistakes are made, it is the employees in particular who suffer.
      1162
      For all those reasons, I am infuriated that we have not had an opportunity to discuss those points in Standing Committee. I have telegraphed my comments because I know that we have a time limit—
      Mr. John Home Robertson: No, my hon. Friend has telescoped them.
      Mr. Foulkes: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That shows the advantage of a good English public school education. I hope that Hansard will be able to sort all this out. Let us go back 60 seconds. I have telescoped my comments today because I know that some of my colleagues are eager to participate in the debate.
      If we had been upstairs in Committee, I would have been able to amplify my comments more and we could have dealt with some of the problems and potential pitfalls. With regard to those potential pitfalls, I have total sympathy, concern and worry for the individual employees and employers who will suffer. If those pitfalls mean that the Secretary of State will once again face court action, I will rejoice and I am sure that most hon. Members will, too.
      Mr. Flynn: Many of us have been around this course before. We had a gallop in respect of statutory sick pay in 1991. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People was present at that debate as he is today and as he has been on many other occasions. We all feel affection for him. His lugubrious and sad aspect reminds me of a remark by an American writer about someone having the guilty look of a vulture who had stolen the wrong eyeball. The Minister of State is the soft man when compared with the hard man.
      The hard man image is put on at the Nuremburg-style rallies which the Conservatives hold once a year. At those events, Secretaries of State rant insanely and make the most outrageous statements. They give silly lists and sing songs about what they are going to do and how they are going to find new victims and scapegoats every month of the year to blame for all our ills. However, all that is forgotten by the next year and something else comes along.
      The Minister of State is a man of conscience and sensibility. He performs his sad task with a guilty air. However, it is probably better that the Minister of State does that than someone else. The Minister of State fulfils a function similar to that performed in Wales by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). The latter Minister of State had the distinction for some time as being the only member of the Tory party in Wales representing Wales who spoke both English and Welsh.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office, has the same air of wistful sadness about him as the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I am sure that the Minister of State, Department of Social Security brings to his duties that same burden of guilt as he has borne since he left the job that he loved in Northern Ireland.
      When we consider what happened in 1991, this is a story of deja vu and "I told you so." In 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made it clear what was likely to happen. At the time, we were talking about only a small reduction to 80 per cent. The CBI made a submission and referred to the measure as
      "a fundamental breach of the partnership agreement between state and employers delivering a vital social security benefit."

      1163
      That has such an old-fashioned ring now. The Government have descended even further from the position in 1991.
      Let us consider the national insurance scheme and what we have done to it. Lloyd George introduced that scheme and said that people would be given ninepence for fourpence. That was a very good bargain because the state was going to put the extra money into the scheme. It was regarded as a very civilising, advanced measure. We then had people who could think only in monetary terms and balance sheets.
      In 1942, Beveridge said that the reason for introducing a national insurance scheme was that, in respect of the insurance that most of our parents had, which was industrial insurance—people came to the door and collected money—half the contributions were lost in the collection and salesmanship of the scheme. We are in precisely the same position now. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who is not always perfect in his views, in his publication called "An Age of Entitlement", has nailed the main fallacy of the Government's policy.
      During the Division, I had an opportunity to talk to one of the Ministers who spoke to the Treasury Select Committee yesterday. I said that the nonsense is that the Government are telling us that the pensions that were paid in 1948—a time of great poverty, when things were very difficult—were of greater value then in real terms than they are now. They are also telling us that pensions paid out of the national insurance scheme in 40 years' time, when we will be far richer than we are now, will be less than are paid now. Their excuse is demographic change.
      I do not apologise for giving the hon. Member for Havant extra publicity for his pamphlet, and my constituency will not receive the £1,000 which three Conservative Members' constituencies will receive after they took part in a publicity stunt for a commercial firm today. The hon. Gentleman's document makes it clear that the demographic change will be far less than anyone is expecting; it will last only for the time that the baby boomers are retiring, a very short period of 10 to 13 years, and then it will be over; it will be a temporary blip; and it should not skew our policies entirely in the way that the Government are saying.
      I do not want to destroy the hon. Gentleman's career any more than we have done already, but I am sure that it will affect his career prospects. That man, who is known to be an acute observer of social affairs, has said that the Government have deliberately used and exaggerated demographic change to push their ideological wish in order to take money from a nationally provided insurance scheme and push it to the private sector.
      Mr. Dewar: Has my hon. Friend noted the report published today by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is the official watchdog appointed by the Government? It dealt with the related matter of the Government's theory that the whole budget of the welfare state is out of control and strongly dissented from that, suggesting that it was possible to sustain that theory only if we took the most gloomy view of the economic prospects of the country.
      Mr. Flynn: That is absolutely correct. The insurance scheme is part of that. If we look at what has happened to the national insurance scheme under the Government, we
      1164
      will see an enormous increase from 6·5 per cent. in 1979 to 10 per cent.—a 50 per cent. increase in contributions. That is unprecedented. One need not continue that for the next 40 years; one need only continue about a third of that and one could give pensions that represent 40 per cent. of final salary. We could do that not by ruining the economy but by enriching the national insurance scheme and changing it in many ways according to the growth that is likely to take place.
      In their 14 years in office, the Government have increased national insurance contributions by a far higher rate than would be necessary to maintain the population throughout the next century, with the kind of pensions—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on to tomorrow's debate. I ask him to return to clause 1.
      Mr. Flynn: A few months ago, I had the pleasure of speaking at a seminar organised by the civil service college for civil servants in Wales who suffer from severe disabilities. Many are wheelchair-bound or blind or profoundly deaf. It is a great credit to the Welsh Office that those talented people are doing productive jobs, but there are nothing like enough of them. The Welsh Office has not got anywhere near its quota, but it was an encouraging experience to meet the group.
      9.45 pm
      One problem is the perception of the capabilities of the disabled. We know that people with severe disabilities have a better record of attendance at work than able-bodied people. I also know that a civil servant who was severely disabled and in a wheelchair could not get into the civil servants' Box in the Chamber. That is a serious bar to their promotion. I know that disabled people find it difficult to get into Committee Rooms in the House—that is, if they have the correct passes, and so on. Those are practical difficulties which are in their way.
      When the debate took place in 1991, the fears of the groups representing disabled people were made clear. It was said then, and it was denied by the Minister of State sitting before us tonight, that it would have an effect. We now know from objective evidence that the cut from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. has had an effect. The CAB has made it clear that that is what is happening and it has given several examples of what will happen in the future.
      The Minister of State has a distinguished record of helping the disabled and there is no questioning his sincerity. There is a question, however, about the results in the areas in which he is working and where achievements have been made. There is no question that the Minister of State, who is also Minister with responsibility for the disabled, is sincerely trying to help the disabled. All the cases that have been quoted—I do not want to repeat them because they were mentioned in the document from the CAB—make that point.
      In the previous debate, claims were made that many companies provided alternative sick pay schemes and a report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies was brought in to support that. The report showed that the coverage was given usually for short-term sickness and that only a tiny proportion of companies would provide sick pay cover if someone was away for a longer period.
      The Government, as in so many other matters, are taking away an efficient national scheme, which is cheap to

      1165
      run and to administer and replacing it with a highly inefficient and administratively top-heavy series of schemes that will provide poor service. We know what is going to happen. People will have an incentive to stay on in work and to risk their health when they are ill.
      There are differences in the time people spend off work in different parts of the country because of sickness, and we know the reasons for that. Some hon. Members will know of people who have been crippled by their jobs, and yet have continued in them. We know of people who have been poisoned, deafened and had their lungs destroyed by their jobs. Those people take more days off sick because they are being killed slowly by the occupations that they follow. That continues into old age and into retirement, and there are differences which relate to the geography of the country.
      This legislation is mean-minded, and it comes from a Government who have run out of ideas. The Government are vindictive and they are out to punish what they see as scapegoats. They want someone to blame. A person who is sick is clearly idling or malingering—that is the Government's view. They have a new scapegoat every month, be it single mothers or whoever. They have to have someone to blame and they know that the popular and tabloid culture might well go along with them. There is a quarry of popular support which the Government can use to chase the scapegoats and to give them a bad name, and that is what they are doing in this case.
      The Government are turning our civilisation back. They are going beyond what the thinking was when this scheme was introduced, not long ago, in 1983. They are going way beyond what happened in 1942 when Beveridge brought out his report. The report received all-party support and those involved wanted to build a society that was more efficient, more kind and more just. This legislation is a retreat from all that.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I apologise for missing the opening speeches. I was working at my desk when saw the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on the monitor and I could not resist the debate. It is quite like old times for my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and myself to be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
      The Secretary of State has left the Chamber. He has no staying power. Perhaps his PPS could pass on the message that my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden has driven several Secretaries of State for Scotland to distraction, and there is every chance that the present Secretary of State for Social Security could well go the same way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Flynn) referred to that famous nauseating speech by the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Conservative party conference about all the people who are clamouring to come to Britain as it is a land flowing with milk and honey and benefits. That rather squalid speech left out the Italian who came here inquiring,
      "dov'e il mafioso con la faccia di bambino?"
      That meant, "Which one is the Secretary of State for Social Security?"
      Perhaps I should declare an interest as an employer. I am happy to see the exclusion affecting small employers' relief. As a small employer on a farm, I may escape the strictures.
      Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should point out that he is falling into the trap laid by the Government. He is assuming that, because there is small firms relief, he will benefit. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that many small employers will not be all right.
      The National Farmers Union has written to us explaining that the measure may hit small farmers, particularly those who pay more than the minimum agricultural wages. They are likely to be prejudiced. The NFU is strongly opposed to the changes in small firms relief.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad to hear that my subscription to the National Farmers Union for Scotland is not wasted. I am horrified to think that there are any farmers who do not pay more than the basic minimum agricultural wage and even more horrified that the Government are planning to scrap the agricultural wages board as that will take the bottom out of the market. I have no doubt that a number of small and medium-sized rural and urban businesses will be adversely affected by the clause.
      We all know from constituency experience and dealings with businesses which run into difficulties what a risky business it can be to employ people. In the present climate, surely it is necessary to encourage firms to employ people. Yet here we are debating legislation which represents an employment tax when there should be employment incentives.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said, this raises particular concern about the employment of some of the more vulnerable people such as disabled people and those who suffer from sickness.
      If employers on the brink have to consider dismissing people who are persistently sick because they have the banks on their backs as well as the Secretary of State for Social Security, it will put extra stress on those with sickness in their families. People with all the financial commitments loaded on by the Government—interest rates, mortgage payments, hire purchase and other debts —could end up without work because their employers find it is too risky to keep them on due to repeated incidence of sickness which are clearly no fault of the individual.
      The same point can be made about employing the disabled. Every cloud is supposed to have a silver lining and there may be circumstances in which employers think it advisable not to employ smokers. That would be a good thing. I say that in the presence of my hon. friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and no doubt he will see me later. Seriously, that is a diabolical discrimination and it could do great damage to many individuals and small employers.
      I am worried by not only the direct application but the principle behind the state unloading responsibility and liability for basic social policy. Employers will have to insure against the risk and meet the administrative cost of doing so. They will have to find other ways of protecting themselves from the risks that flow from clause 1. I imagine that insurance companies will require employers entering such policies to vet potential employees carefully. There will be no question of employing the disabled and that must be bad news. I am not surprised that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People was looking at his boots just now—
      Mr. Flynn: He was looking at his watch.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I do not care what he was looking at. The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being a comparatively civilised character, yet he is acting on behalf of the absent mafioso—I mean the Secretary of State—in enacting legislation that will have a vicious effect on all employers and many employees. He has a lot of explaining to do.
      Mr. Dewar: I will briefly speak on a couple of minor points, because I know that the Minister is anxious to address the Committee in the next minute or two. It may help if I add to the short list of points that the Minister might answer. I will not delay the Committeee long.
      I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security is back with us. I learned today not to produce a metaphor in a speech, because the hon. Gentleman seized on it like a terrier seizing a bone and chased it around the Chamber in a fierce manner for a considerable time. I thought that he was transported back to the days when he was a prodigy at Conservative party conferences, but I know that he wants to forget them.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Flynn) on his metaphors. We use them carelessly sometimes, but vultures and scapegoats go together. If a scapegoat is tethered it is extremely likely that vultures will gather round. That possibly explains why the right hon. Gentleman perches in the Department for Social Security as elegantly, persistently and patiently as he does. Clearly the scapegoats are taking a long time to die. We should be grateful.
      It is clear that the essence of the Government's case has nothing to do with the £1,000 million a week that they must borrow to balance the books, or with getting to grips once and for all with public sector borrowing requirement problems. If there is a case, it is a flimsy one—and relies on the rather cynical view that there cannot be good management without direct financial incentives.
      I do not share that view. In saying that, I am not lining up with inefficient management and asking for its continuation in the heart of British industry. The opposite is true. I have much sympathy—and it is not often that this will be said—with the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), to the extent that he produced a substantial list of remarkable British industry success stories, particularly from the motor industry, and pointed to radical and dramatic changes in the atmosphere in those firms which reflects a sharp and welcome decline in absenteeism because of ill health and other causes.
      I absolutely accept that that is something that we want and that it is something that British management should be tackling. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) argued that good management is tackling that and succeeding, but they are doing so without the so-called advantages of clause 1 being on the statute book.
      Therefore, I understand the Government's argument, but my understanding it does not mean that I accept it. I genuinely do not think that the case has been made out for the massive reorganisation and restructuring of the system, or for the massive transfer out of the public sector into the private sector. Without it British management will never get off the proverbial backside—and I use that as a figure of speech.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Social Security (Contributions) Bill [Ways and Means] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 261.

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Dewar: Before the interruption I was making one or two short points, and I do not intend to prolong them, but perhaps it is worth reminding those who were here then that I was praising the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for the quality of his argument, but disagreeing with his conclusions. There is still time to put the matter right before we vote on clause stand part, but my brief message to Ministers is that no substantial case has yet been made to persuade us that the Bill should be supported or given a fair wind.
  I shall briefly mention a couple of other specific matters. Regulations under the clause will be introduced at some point, and it is easy to miss the introduction of regulations in the House. As the Committee will know, to some extent we are in the hands of the Government. If I remember rightly, the regulations will be made under the negative resolution procedure, so we shall have to pray against them. In such cases we are not even guaranteed a debate —I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House is again loyally in his place to listen to the debate.
  I am sure that the Minister of State will give us an assurance that he will use his good offices, although I realise that the matter is not entirely in his gift, to try to ensure that if there are prayers against any such orders—I promise him that there will be—there will be a debate, preferably on the Floor of the House.
  It is not a partisan argument to say that we are being offered a package deal, and that the offset arrangements will be crucial. We have a breathing space between now and the introduction of the regulations, during which we can pursue the arguments not only with Ministers but with many of the interest groups involved. I suspect that the citizens advice bureaux and several of the welfare organisations will want to enter the lists.
  I admit that we have all been doing a textual job on the nuances of what the CBI said, and what lay behind the typescript, but I am not always greatly enthused when someone says that their support for me amounts to a decision not to oppose me. That is probably a significant cooling, compared with the CBI's normal approach.
  If there is a debate on the regulations, and it is held on the Floor of the House, no doubt the organisations themselves will have time to consult their members. I may regret my request; those organisations may even offer the Government warmer support, but at least the situation will have been clarified. Not only will we be able to measure their attitude to the Bill, but they may give us more clarification about the caveats, and about the reassurances that they want. It is not worth while for me to press the Minister too far, because I suspect that he is a prisoner of convention. He is a man of discretion, and I doubt whether he will kick over the traces.
  As I said earlier, what worries the organisations is the thought that the Secretary of State, or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, may have his way, and the big transfer will continue.
  The Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991 got off to a standing start, we have suddenly seen the pace quicken with this Bill and we shall suddenly go down the road with the brakes off

  1173
  and the whole thing will be out of control. We need more clarification and more expert opinion in that area, as well on the subject of national insurance contributions.
  Will the Minister say when the regulations are likely to appear? Presumably it will be well before April. After all, we are told that it is absolutely essential that we get the Bill through in the draconian fashion that has been chosen, because April approacheth and all sorts of preparations must be made. Presumably the same argument applies to the adjustments to employers' contributions and, therefore, I presume, we may begin anxiously looking for those regulations shortly after the turn of the year in January.
  I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was trying to be helpful by saying that the fears that I was suggesting—not endorsing —may arise over the change in the point at which entitlement of statutory sick pay ends and that my fears over the translation from retirement age to 65 were not well grounded. I am happy to accept his word and I hope that it is true. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will say something about the cost of that change.
  In the financial memorandum, if I remember correctly, the cost to employers of that change in retirement age is estimated at about £10 million. That strikes me as a small sum, but it may reflect the fact that we expect fewer women between the age of 60 and 65 to be drawing retirement pension and statutory sick pay. That estimate lasts until 2020. One of the most extraordinary changes that we have seen in the labour market and in social practice has been the way in which women have become economically active. It is a welcome development. About 45 or 46 per cent. of the work force are women and in a number of areas —my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will be interested to know that Lothian is one of them—such as the Borders, which is good Liberal territory at the moment, the majority of the work force are women.
  I expect that revolution to continue. If £10 million is the current estimate, is there any projection of that figure into the next century towards 2020? How will that affect the rather proud claim of the Minister that the offset makes the package better than neutral? I am not sure that that claim will hold, as I made clear at the beginning. Over the next 27 years, because of inflation, or because of the social change, there may be a real escalation in that figure. It may not be of interest to the Committee, but it is to me.
  The Minister should also clear up the vexed question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has temporarily left the Committee and who talked as a small employer in the field of agriculture. Perhaps "the field of agriculture" is an unfortunate turn of phrase.
  There has been a lot of talk about Peking flu. The Secretary of State cracked a little joke, picking up the Foreign Secretary's admonishment of those precious enough to try to pronounce Beijing in a Chinese accent. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has travelled there on many occasions and knows the correct pronunciation. Like the Secretary of State, I will settle for Peking.
  If an employer has a very small work force who are struck down by Peking flu or some other disaster, it can have substantial financial consequences in terms of statutory sick pay. It is a little like the old argument, with
  1174
  which Ministers will be familiar, about the effect on small firms of responsibility for maternity leave when a key employee cannot be replaced from the existing work force.
  The Committee would appreciate a word or two about the stresses and strains on small firms, given the fact that about 75 to 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay relates to loss of work in the initial four-week period and must, therefore, be met entirely by the small firms. As the Committee will know, at present it is a six-week period and firms pay 20 per cent., if I remember rightly. It is now to be four weeks, but it is surprising how little difference in lost time the extension of four to six weeks makes. The vast majority of cases will still fall within that period and will have to be met entirely by the small firms. Before we move on, the Minister should make an effort to reassure us on that point.
  I cannot resist saying that the Peking flu has been dramatically if rather quaintly illustrated in the life of the House of Commons in the past week or two to the hon. Members who have examined the beautifully printed letter from the manufacturer of the House of Commons mints, explaining that more than one third of its work force has been struck by the Peking flu. The supply of mints—not that to hon. Members but to those who are the ultimate recipients of the mint road that leads back to most of our constituencies—will therefore be badly affected. That struck me as a rather homely metaphor for the type of problem that can hit an aristocratic, but, I suspect, comparatively small firm with whose products at least we are all tremendously familiar. The Minister should deal with such matters because they warrant his attention.
  I conclude, because I believe that one or two hon. Members wish to speak. I assure you, Mr. Lofthouse, that I shall not intervene again in the clause stand part debate. My closing point is that I do not feel especially partisan in arguing the case as I have done.
  There are occasions when I have the impression that I am on the front line in a trench on the Somme in about 1916 and probably as likely to make progress. On this occasion, however, I do not feel like that, because I know that many Conservative Members—perhaps those who are not in the Chamber now, although I know that they exist—are very worried about the principle that was established in 1990 and that they will certainly not like the way in which it has been extended.
  I have already mentioned quotations from the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and, above all, the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) who, to be fair, has a distinguished record of independence of thought on Europe, which I am sure has the complete approval of the Secretary of State for Social Security. I suspect that his thinking has in no way displeased the Secretary of State who, I hope, will consider equally favourably the worries about what happened in 1990, which were so robustly expressed by the hon. Member for Beverley. Of course, the hon. Gentleman understimated the energy with which the Secretary of State would continue the demolition exercise on the state's responsibility for statutory sick pay.
  A further quotation that happens to come to hand is that from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) who said:
  "The companies in my constituency are worried because the principle that the Government should reimburse companies 100 per cent. has been broken."

  1175
  At that time, we were reducing the reimbursement rate from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. He explained, beyond argument, that the principle of 100 per cent. reimbursement was being broken. He said:
  "Companies pay the costs of administration and they are perfectly happy to do so"—
  I am not sure about that—
  "but 100 per cent. reimbursement is necessary because the principle is that companies are not in control of sickness—they do not cause their employees' sickness."—[Official Report, 26 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 668.]
  10.30 pm
  I deliberately read out that extract because it reflects one of the important subjects of debate and dispute between us. I could have quoted the words of Conservative Members who merely condemn what the Bill stands for, but the hon. Member for Newark has expressed a view that I believe Ministers contest. The essence of the Government's case is that employers can do something about the sickness of their employees. If employers are brutal, they can get rid of their sick employees. Employers could buy flu vaccine on
  1176
  a massive scale, as one Minister suggested earlier. The general thrust of the argument was that vaccine manufacturers might be one of the few growth sectors in the British economy.
  I accept that good employers can do something to help the problem of sickness at work. I do not accept that they need the reform to galvanise themselves into action. Even though improvement is possible, the hon. Member for Newark is right to say that many of the problems are not created by or in the control of the employer. Different health statistics in different parts of the country are largely related to economic depravation, as well as other factors. If one operates in a community that has been victimised by economic history and circumstance, it is difficult to establish the sort of savings envisaged by Ministers who advocate the clause.
  For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that the onus of proof has been discharged by those on whom it lies. Unless the Minister of State can do much more, in his patient and careful way, to remove our doubts, the clause will not measure up to the standards that the House of Commons should apply when making a judgment on what should be allowed to pass on to the statute book.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: I have listened to the debate and read the documentation on the Bill that the Government have published, and the calculations on the cost—or in this case benefit—to industry are different from those submitted with the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991. It was then suggested that there would be a cost to industy of £100 million. There seems to be a gap of about £300 million. Perhaps the Ministers can have a quick chat while they are sitting next to each other and find out where the difference in the calculations occurs.
  It is being suggested that employers can improve their employees' absence record by better management techniques, but it is also being suggested that the reduction in the period to four weeks for 100 per cent. compensation for small employers will benefit them. The two suggestions are contradictory. In the past three years of deep recession, large employers may have tolerated higher sickness levels because they were a means of coping with a decrease in production requirements, but exactly the opposite is true of small employers.
  In the food industry, where it is vital for people to have 100 per cent. good health, the incentive to small employers should be to ensure that their employees stay off work for the maximum period necessary to allow them to recover. Sick employees must not be allowed to affect the food production. Environmental health officers would have much to say about any pressure being placed on management to ensure that sick employees in the food industry return to work too quickly.
  The impact of the Bill will vary according to the size of the employer and the way in which the employer operates. Large employers such as banks, with, say 100 people per branch, may be able to cope with any level of absence for a short period, whereas firms engaged in a continuous process cannot cope with anyone being off work. The Bill will have different impacts on different sections of the economy.
  Let me cite one industry in what is still classed as our manufacturing sector. Some 25,000 companies in Britain are engaged in the printing industry, which is the third largest employer among those constituting our declining manufacturing base. Of those 25,000 companies, some 200 have more than 1,000 employees, and 19,500 have fewer than 10 employees. Those small firms are engaged in a continuous process—if the employees are not there. the work simply does not get done and cannot be left to somebody else. What will be the impact of the Bill for such employers? They will not only be worse off to the tune of 80 per cent. of the costs of statutory sick pay for the first four weeks; they will also incur in full the additional burden of having to take on temporary employees—usually through agencies and usually at premium rates of pay.
  One of the problems that we face in dealing with the Bill in such a short time is that we cannot give full consideration and full weight to those issues. Instead, we have to rely on dubious evidence submitted to the Committee by the Secretary of State.
  The only other point—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) want to say something? If so, he should get up and say it. As I was saying—[Interruption.] I have again been interrupted from a sedentary position, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Gentleman is lost for words, he should sit down.
  Mr. Rooney: Sometimes one's friends are not at one's side, Mr. Morris.
  The impact of clause 1 on a given sector, size or class of employer is very difficult to assess.
  A further difficulty with primary social security legislation is that its real impact is felt through regulations that appear some months subsequently, and those regulations cannot be amended—only accepted or rejected. We can only speculate—time alone will tell—but it seems to me that errors in the calculations and the falseness of the philosophy behind the Bill will result in an significant cost to business. I note that the business compliance cost assessment contained in the Bill gives no indication of what the cost will be; it refers only to the savings. I think that the cost will be enormous. That will have implications for the employment prospects of people who are currently unemployed. It will also have employment consequences for those of less than perfect health. A little more time should be devoted to that issue.
  Mr. Scott: I was amazed by two aspects of the debate. The first was the flood of personal affection that seemed to flow across the House in my direction. The second was much more substantial: I was astonished that the Opposition, who have complained bitterly about the time allocated for the discussion of the Bill, should have thought it necessary to take 15 minutes out to contest the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. That seems to me to be a rum set of priorities.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about regulations. We estimate that the regulations will be ready to be discussed in February. Of course I will make a commitment in that context. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was also present while the hon. Gentleman was making that point, and my right hon. Friend and I will stay in touch with the hon. Gentleman on it.
  As I listened to the debate, I found it very difficult to detect any arguments that had not already been dealt with by my colleagues on the Front Bench in previous debates, but there are two points that I want to mention briefly. The first relates to the CBI and business reaction to the proposals.
  Anyone who has read the CBI's brief knows that it says:
  "The CBI does not wish to oppose the SSP Bill."
  The CBI may make detailed points on behalf of its members, but it does not oppose the Bill. Given the record of Conservative and Labour Administrations, anyone in an organisation of or for people involved in business and commerce would be out of their mind to regard Labour's record as anything other than lamentable. Right up to and including the last Budget, the Government have shown their concern for business, and for small businesses in particular. We have done so most recently with our deregulation drive to lift burdens off the backs of business, and we have more than compensated employers for the costs that they will incur as a result of reductions in national insurance contributions.
  Mr. Foulkes: I was one of the hon. Members who said nice things about the Minister, so I am grateful to him for giving way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, all the substantive points

  1179
  that the CBI made were against the Bill, but, because it is a Conservative organisation, it believes that it must be loyal. The Minister of State said that the Government support small businesses and that small businesses support the Bill. He is 100 per cent. wrong, because the Federation of Small Businesses
  "therefore urges Members of Parliament to reject this Bill".
  Even the Minister, despite all his sweet talk and silver tongue, cannot counteract that.
  Mr. Scott: What I cannot counteract is the understanding of those who represent small businesses, who, reading the proposed plans for statutory sick pay, were unaware of the generosity of the Government's proposals for national insurance contributions, which have been slanted to help small businesses.
  Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.
  I want to deal with one aspect of the Bill that has been mentioned a number of times and for which I feel a direct responsibility—the employment of people with disabilities. There is no evidence that employers discriminate against disabled people in their employment practices. As at least one Opposition Member acknowledged, the opposite tends to be true: employers are becoming increasingly aware of the skills and abilitiest that disabled people bring to their enterprises. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that disabled people take less time off because of sickness and are more committed to making a contribution to the success of businesses. The experience of the Employers Forum on Disability in encouraging employers to have positive attitudes to the employment of disabled people is spreading widely and is much to be commended.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) briefly mentioned the employment of disabled civil servants. More disabled people are joining the civil service. I recognise the difficulties that this place presents to disabled civil servants. We have commissioned an audit of the Palace of Westminster and its accessibility to disabled people, and the report will be considered by the House authorities in the near future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
  Mr. Bradley: I thank the Minister for his assurances about the regulations. We are glad to learn that he will keep the Opposition Front Bench informed of their progress, and that we shall have an opportunity to debate them—on the Floor of the House, I hope.
  I find it extraordinary that the Minister should be so sure of the support of small businesses. He is living in the past. There is evidence that small businesses, certainly those in the north-west and Manchester, are turning more and more to Labour and its policies. The fact that the CBI merely said that it did not oppose the Bill is testimony to that. I think that this is the first time that that organisation has not shouted its full support for the Government from the chimney tops; the Government are incredibly complacent if they take any comfort from what it has said on this occasion.
  10.45 pm
  I am especially saddened and surprised by the Minister's complacency about the position of people with disabilities. He may well be right in saying that when
  1180
  disabled people are in employment, they are recognised as hard working, diligent and valuable members of the work force; indeed, I cited evidence to support that view. However, with millions of people unemployed, it is now increasingly difficult for anyone to get work. Following these measures, and future measures involving incapacity benefit, fewer people with disabilities will be able to gain employment. I hope that the Minister will think again.
  According to Lorna Reith of the Disability Alliance,
  "we are deeply concerned that making employers take on more of the cost of SSP will make them even more reluctant to employ disabled people. There is substantial evidence available that disabled people face discrimination in the job market. This will only add to their difficulties.
  That sums up what the Opposition have been saying.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: What will happen to Remploy, which has an especially high proportion of disabled employees? Will there be special provision for that company, which will inevitably experience more incidence of sickness? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The company, by its very nature, has a higher proportion of disabled employees.
  Mr. Bradley: That is exactly the sort of point that we should have liked to discuss in detail in Standing Committee, had we been given the time. Clearly employers such as Remploy will experience difficulties.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Dr. Spink rose—
  Mr. BradleyI will not give way. I am trying to finish my speech.
  Disability organisations throughout the country have overwhelmingly recognised the difficulties that people with disabilities will experience in trying to get into the job market. That is why the Opposition wish to divide the Committee.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I had not intended to speak, but I cannot let what has been said go unchallenged. Opposition Members are confusing sickness with disability. People with disabilities have an outstandingly good record of faithful attendance. Remploy does not have a high degree of sickness. This is outrageous: Opposition Members are impairing disabled people's chances of getting jobs.
  Mr. Rooney: For several hours, Ministers have said that there is a very generous settlement for small businesses in respect of the changes proposed in the Bill. Will a Minister confirm to the Committee that small businesses are currently reimbursed 80 per cent. of the cost of statutory sick pay in the first four weeks, but in future they will receive nothing?
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:
  The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 226.

  Division No. 45]

  [10.49 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ashby, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  1181

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Booth, Hartley

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gorst, John

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hague, William

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butterfill, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dicks, Terry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, Sir David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luff, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Madel, David

  French, Douglas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fry, Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  1182

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marlow, Tony

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spencer, Sir Darek

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spring, Richard

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Sproat, Iain

  Merchant, Piers

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Stern, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stewart, Allan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Streeter, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sykes, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thomason, Roy

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trend, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pickles, Eric

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walden, George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, Rt Hon John,

  Ward, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Richards, Rod

  Waterson, Nigel

  Riddick, Graham

  Watts, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whitney, Ray

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wilshire, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mrs. Derek Conway.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Blair, Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blunkett, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bradley, Keith

  Barnes, Harry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Battle, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Byers, Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  1183

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cann, Jamie

  Janner, Greville

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jowell, Tessa

  Coffey, Ann

  Keen, Alan

  Cohen, Harry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Leighton, Ron

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Cox, Tom

  Litherland, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cummings, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  McAllion, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dafis, Cynog

  McCartney, Ian

  Darling, Alistair

  McCrea, Rev William

  Davidson, Ian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Denham, John

  McWilliam, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Mahon, Alice

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Mandelson, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Meacher, Michael

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Michael, Alun

  Eastham, Ken

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Enright, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Etherington, Bill

  Milburn, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Fatchett, Derek

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morley, Elliot

  Fisher, Mark

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mudie, George

  Fraser, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gerrard, Neil

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Olner, William

  Godsiff, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Parry, Robert

  Graham, Thomas

  Patchett, Terry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pope, Greg

  Gunnell, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hall, Mike

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hanson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hardy, Peter

  Prescott, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Heppell, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hinchliffe, David

  Radice, Giles

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Randall, Stuart

  Home Robertson, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Redmond, Martin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rendel, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hutton, John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Ingram, Adam

  Rowlands, Ted

  1184

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Short, Clare

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Simpson, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watson, Mike

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

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

  Snape, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stevenson, George

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out ", and such savings,".
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, leave out from "1" to end of line 22.
  No. 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
  Mr. Dewar: This is first amendment of the group of amendments which stands in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends.
  I approach this amendment perhaps with a little nervousness. Although it is an interesting technical matter which I wish to discuss and to probe, I am aware that in the rather grand setting of the House of Commons it looks like the work of a barrack-room lawyer.
  One of the disadvantages of being on the Floor of the House is that amendments which would generally fit in a Committee upstairs and which would give us a quite interesting few minutes of discussion suddenly seem just a little modest for the space and the stage which they occupy. However, I am not going to be put off. As we are here on the Floor of the House, it is our duty to try to understand what clause 2 is about. I say "try to understand" because it is a technical clause and does not raise the great issues of policy and the great sweeps of principle which clause 1 raises, although there may be the occasional point where they overlap.
  The first obvious common ground is that, whatever the clause is about, it relates to regulations which presumably will be made at some future date by the Government and by the present team at the Department of Social Security. The first basic thing to establish is exactly what the regulations are. My hon. Friends, and I suspect a number of Conservative Members, will sympathise with the fact that more and more we are presented with very short Bills. These are effectively one-clause Bills, as we keep being told. However, if one looks closely at the print, one finds that they spawn generation upon generation and tribes and nations of regulations and subsidiary orders. It is extremely difficult for the House to keep track of them. On many occasions, they result in Government by diktat.
  I know that some of my colleagues from Northern Ireland have been present during the debate. They have to

  1185
  deal with interminable orders and almost no primary legislation. They must be at a considerable disadvantage in terms of the role of scrutiny which falls to the House.
  I make no apologies for saying that, when I read clauses such as clause 2, little alarm bells start ringing, my antennae start bristling and I wonder whether I am being taken for a ride by the Executive and the legislature is being bypassed. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) says so eloquently, "Again."
  The first and really important question I want to ask the Minister is whether he will define the regulations and the occasions to which they apply. It is not as simple as it sounds; it never is in this place. I want to get it absolutely clear in my mind.
  Can I assume that the regulations to which clause 2 refers are not the offsetting regulations dealing with the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions and which are an important part of the package? That must be so per se, but it is important to lay the ground rules before we get down to the nitty gritty of the argument.
  I imagine that the national insurance contribution rule changes will be in another thicket of legislation which, genealogically can be traced back to totally different primary legislation. If we tried to trace all the measures, we would be left with a legislative family tree resembling that of the Hapsburg family, with so many roots and branches that it would be almost impossible to know where one was going.
  Having established, with the helpful nod of the Minister who is anxious to make progress, that we are not talking about the offsetting regulations, what regulations are we discussing? We cannot define them by exclusion; we would have to go a long way round the houses to do that. We are looking for a positive definition and explanation from the Minister.
  I asked in particular about the words "and such savings". What particular savings are they? To define that, it is important to look at the words "transitional and consequential provision", which are interlinked by a comma of some significance.
  The Bill refers to
  "such transitional and consequential provisions, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient".
  I am interested to know what the transitional regulations would be.
  When I think of transitional regulations, I think of financial buffers that are built in when a change is so sharp that it is unreasonable to expect people to put up with the costs. I think particularly of finance or the poll tax. I shall not talk about that, but hon. Members may remember that an endless series of transitional arrangements were laid before the House as the Government tried in vain to buy peace on that contentious issue.
  Perhaps more relevant to the debate, as they refer to the DSS, are the transitional arrangements for the Child Support Agency which involve a phasing arrangement in the first year. I shall not go into the detail of the financial cut off, but that is an example of transitional or phasing arrangements to protect a small group of people who have been paying money under a court order and facing an increase of more than £20 but less than £60 a week. That is a good example of the transitional arrangements that comes to mind.
  Am I far off the beam? Are we talking about that kind of transitional financial buffer? If so, in what
  1186
  circumstances would it apply in the context of the measure that we are invited to enact in clause 1? We want to get at the essence of the word "transitional".
  Similar questions arise in respect of consequential provisions. I suppose that they are consequential on the change to clause 1—there cannot be anything else from which the consequence could spring. I invite the Minister to clarify the situation. The word "consequential" has a broad definition. My first thought—the Minister will be able to say whether I am far off the track—was that "consequential" might relate to clause 1 and a continuation of the kind of variation on the rate of rebate that began with the 1992 Act.
  The reason for my puzzlement is that there cannot be any further downward consequential movement because the rebate has reached nought per cent. Not even this Government could operate a negative rate of rebate, where the unfortunate employer would have to pay something as a bounty to the Department of Social Security. That would be going too far. I hope that the Minister will rule that out.
  Earlier, I quoted the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) who said that it was unlikely in his view—and how right he was—that the 80 per cent. rebate would rise rather than fall. It does not seem that the consequential regulations deal with the rate of rebate or its disappearance. It is important that the Minister gives some idea of what is transitional and what is consequential, and what savings are meant by the words "and such savings" in clause 2(1).
  I take that matter seriously because I know that the Minister is keen on savings. They are one of the Government's principal obsessions. I note that they are keen on making savings at the expense of others rather than at their own. In any event, I am always suspicious when the words "and such savings" cross my course.
  We know that administrative costs fall on industry, and some will still fall on the Department as a result of the system. For example, small business relief will remain, and that will involve paperwork and administration of one sort or another. Will savings be made by cutting that expense by further abolitions, trimmings or restrictions of small business relief—or, worse still, by telling businesses, "We expect you to meet the cost of savings to us"? Is that a possibility under clause 2? I hope that those points are reasonably connected and logical and that the Minister will be able to help.
  The second amendment in the group refers to a longer proposed excision in clause 2(1), to remove the words
  "or the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force."
  I must confess that as I get older I find the words, the wonders, the subtleties and the complexities of the legal draftsmen the harder to follow. I suppose it is because I am more and more of a refugee from the law. It is many years since I opened a law book in anger —or for money, which is perhaps more relevant. I am therefore perhaps struggling somewhere behind the pace when it comes to the textual analysis of those words which I am trying to remove—or which I am suggesting might be removed, because my views on the matter are not yet definite—from that part of the Bill. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to help me.

  1187
  11.15 pm
  The problem is that the regulations coming into force are:
  "the provisions of section 1 or the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section"—
  that is, clause 1 of the Bill—
  "during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force."
  Quite a substantial point arises, in which I want to engage the Minister. I was going to say that I hope that he will try and follow me. I was not suggesting any fault on his part. It may be simply that my explanation is not as clear as I would want it to be, but I will do my best.
  I am sure that the Minister has a copy of the Bill in front of him. Clause 1, which is what we are concerned with, says:
  "the operation of any enactment repealed or amended".
  That means that we must be referring, by definition, to section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman said clause 1; he is reading clause 2, I think, if I may say so.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady may say what she likes, but I am referring to clause 1. I am afraid that she has not followed my argument and it may be my fault. [HON. MEMBERS: "Start again."] No; I am not starting again. This is a point that I am genuinely curious about so let me try and develop it. Clause 2, to which the amendment has been tabled, refers to
  "operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section"—
  that is, section 1. Therefore, when we consider what it applies to—the amendments or repeals—we have to go back to section 1 to find the candidates. That is absolutely clear. It is section 1. If the hon. Lady goes back to section 1 she will see that the list of candidates is comparatively short.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Secton 1 or clause 1?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman, the name of whose constituency escapes me, makes a fair point.
  Mr. Dickens: Littleborough and Saddleworth.
  Mr. Dewar: I resist the temptation to ask where that is, but there is a danger of becoming frivolous. I want to follow the point through and I am distracting myself.
  The hon. Member makes a fair point. I am of course referring to clause 1 in that context, but a minute or two ago I referred to section 1. As this is referred to in the text of the Bill, it is of course section 1, because it is written on the assumption that it will become an Act. Therefore there is a slight confusion because we are discussing this as though in a prism; it is at different levels and it is therefore easy to slip between the levels and, I quite understand, confuse the hon. Gentleman.
  The list of candidates for appeal or enactment is, as I said, short. Obviously, the main and most important candidate is section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The bit that I am trying to excise from clause 2 refers to the repeal or amendment of that section
  "during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force."
  1188
  I take it, and I may be wrong, that that cannot apply to section 158(1)(a) of the 1992 Act because clause 1 goes on to say that that section
  "shall cease to have effect."
  If, once the Bill is enacted, that clause ceases to have effect it clearly cannot be a candidate for something that refers to its appeal or amendment during any period when that appeal or amendment is not wholly in force.
  Surely, if something ceases to have effect, to use a shorthand of politics, it dies at a stroke immediately the Act is brought into being. Therefore, it cannot be what is referred to when we are talking about a
  "period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force."
  That is an incompatibility. To put it in good lay language, "It doesn't fit."
  I am perfectly prepared to listen to what the Minister has to say on the matter and he may be able to persuade me otherwise, but I deduce that section 158(1)(a) of the 1992 Act is not a candidate. It must be taken off the list as it does not meet the test, or fit into the jigsaw of the complex patterns that are wrought by the draftsmen in clause 2 of the Bill.
  I want to be fair, however, and there are other—although minor—possibilities. Clause 1(2) refers to
  "section 81(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992"
  and
  "paragraph 2 of Schedule 11 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992".
  I do not think that it can mean section 81(2) of the 1992 Act because that is very narrow in its terms, if I remember rightly, and is also not likely to meet the requirement that it might be hanging around, not wholly in force, half in and half out, like a ghost in the legislative corridors. Section 81(2) does not fit that bill, as I think that hon. Members in the Committee who remember it will agree.
  We may therefore be reduced to paragraph 2 of schedule 11 to the 1992 Act, which refers to
  "circumstances in which entitlement to statutory sick pay does not arise"
  and the switch from "over pensionable age" to "over the age of 65". In a sense, that seems to be the most plausible of the candidates, but it is a very narrow issue, which is peripheral to the main thrust of clause 1.
  Although I am always open to guidance, I am in some doubt about whether the words that I have suggested that we should excise in amendment No. 2 should go on the basis that they are not really needed. If I am right in my detective story and paragraph 2 of schedule 11 is the only appeal or amendment to which the clause can refer, perhaps the Minister can tell us in what circumstances that could arise.
  It is a simple concept. At some date, entitlement to statutory sick pay, which at the moment is available to women before the age of 60—assuming that they pass all the other tests and criteria such as availability for work and so forth—and for men up to the age of 65, will change. As I understand it, it is not like the phasing in of the arrangements for the retirement age under the state pension scheme. The change will be introduced immédiatement—perhaps I am being unfair to those above in the Press Gallery. It will come into force suddenly; instead of 60 and 65 we will have 65 and that will be the end of the matter.
  If I am right, I again do not understand how it meets the test of a
  "period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force."

  1189
  I hope that I have not in any way confused the Committee with those few remarks, but those genuinely innocent-looking amendments repay some examination. The more we look at them, the more we come to the conclusion that there are matters at stake which should be clarified before we move on.
  Obviously, I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. It may be that I will want to speak again when I have heard his explanation. Some of my hon. Friends may also want to participate in the discussion. [Interruption.] I can assure the Leader of the House—once again I congratulate him on coming back to the Chamber—that I have every intention of properly exhausting this issue. I intend to do my job conscientiously.
  Another matter that I should mention, simply for completeness and because it is involved in this group of amendments, is amendment No. 3, which deals with a suggestion that we leave out subsection (2). I suppose it should really be sub-clause (2) in view of the strictures that we heard earlier on this matter.
  I do not intend to advance any complex arguments on this matter. I will perhaps do something that is very unfair; I will simply read subsection (2) to the Committee.
  Mr. Newton: Three times?
  Mr. Dewar: No, just once. I will then invite the Minister to explain the provision to us, because it is a peculiarly obscure offering.
  Subsection (2) states: "Section 175(2) to" 175(4)—I am interpolating that to make it clearer—
  "of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (general provisions as to regulations and orders) apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a power conferred by that Act to make regulations."
  For the life of me, I am not clear what that means. Of course, that is a fault on my part. If hon. Members are ignorant and recognise that their powers of comprehension are letting them down, the best thing to do on occasions like this is to make a virtue of it.
  I suspect—I may be totally wrong—that some hon. Members may be suffering from the same inability and frustrations as me. I know that the Minister, who has been well briefed by his men and women of skill and expertise, will have mastered this before he came into the debate and therefore should be able, without too much trouble, to guide us through the intricacies.
  I think I know what section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is about, although it is very general in its message. But I am not at all clear about
  "subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a power conferred by that Act to make regulations."
  I am not sure how it all fits together. Even if I say it quickly, it does not sound any better.
  I am asking the Minister to unravel this—I think "unravel" is the right word. Indeed, I am asking him simply to take us gently through the intricacies to make it all clear. If he can do that, he will do a considerable service to the Committee. I am happy to subside to my bench with a receptive mind and try to follow exactly where the Minister will now lead us. Perhaps from that point the discussion can proceed.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Committee is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for drawing our attention to the curious parts of clause 2. Of course, I have now made the
  1190
  fatal error of reading it. If we cut through the terms of subsection (1) and take out all the qualifications, it could be read as follows:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulation make … such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient for … the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section".
  Mr. Flynn: That could mean anything.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I feel profoundly uncomfortable at the thought of giving the Secretary of State, who is absent from the Chamber now, powers personally to introduce regulations to enable him to make
  "such savings, as he considers necessary or expendient"
  for any purpose whatever.
  11.30 pm
  In the absence of the Secretary of State, the Minister of State has the opportunity to cut free, and demonstrate that he is the reasonable man we all know he is. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden was a little unfair to the Government when he suggested that section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 81(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 would disappear immediately on enactment of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend quoted the words
  "shall cease to have effect",
  and that is what the Bill says, but such things can happen by stages. Perhaps that is why the Government seek the powers under the clause—so as to make it possible to phase in the scheme. The Minister may have some scope for "lifting the burden"—if I may use the Government's terminology—from businesses. Instead of the burden of paying the higher share of statutory sick pay being transferred at a strobe, just like that, to employers, it could be phased in.
  No doubt if the Secretary of State were here he would have no truck with that kind of thing. He would want to put the boot in to the employers straight away. But he is not here at this stage of the evening, and the rest of us are all right behind the Minister of State, because we know that he is a reasonable man.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Derek Enright: He is our candidate.
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend must control himself.
  It might be possible to phase in the burden, and if that is what the provision means, it could be useful.
  Mr. Scott: Rather than going into the technicalities of the draftsmen's wording of the clause, I shall attempt, as briefly and clearly as I can, to explain the purposes for which the provisions are included in the Bill. As is clear from the Bill, subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State to
  "make such transitional and consequential provision, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient for or in connection with the coming into force"
  of the substantive provisions of clause 1.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No, I should like to get on. If the hon. Gentleman listens and there is time left when I have finished, he can come back and ask me questions.
  There has been some misunderstanding about the use of the word "savings". I cannot remember whether it was

  1191
  bells ringing or antennae prickling that the hon. Member for Garscadden described, but as soon as the Opposition see the word "savings" they think that something sinister is going on. However, "savings" in this context have nothing to do with money. The word is a technical term used in legislation; when changes are made and a new scheme or pattern is introduced, anything that one wishes to retain from the previous legislation is called a saving. That is it. There is nothing sinister about it, and it is a sensible provision to include. That is one fox down.
  The provisions of subsection (1) are, I am advised, a common feature of social security legislation. The Committee knows that the main thrust of the Bill is to end the right of employers to recover 80 per cent. of the statutory sick pay paid out to their employees from remittances of national insurance contributions. However, we must provide clear guidelines for employers explaining how the change will work in practice on 6 April next year, when the new arrangements come into effect.
  It is said that, when Adam and Eve were leaving the garden of Eden in somewhat difficult circumstances, Adam tried to reassure Eve by saying, "We live in an age of transition, my dear." Whether that was any comfort to Eve, I do not know. [Interruption.] This is a state of transition, and few of us like going through stages of transition and change unless they are manifestly beneficial.
  We need to be able to tell employers what effect the change will have on the recovery arrangements in respect of those employees who are off work sick and entitled to SSP at about the time of the change. The Government's intention is to enable employers to be able to continue to recover the appropriate amount of SSP paid for days of sickness up to and including 5 April 1994, even if the employer cannot recover that amount until after that date.
  Only SSP paid for days of sickness on or after 6 April will be affected by the change in the reimbursement arrangements. That is the sort of provision that industry would expect us to make for the reimbursement arrangements covering the changeover date itself. It follows exactly, and in a similar form of words, the practice adopted in April 1991 when the reimbursement rate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. With the agreement of employers, all SSP due for days immediately before the change was recoverable at 100 per cent. and the reduction to 80 per cent. applied only from 6 April 1991.
  It is clear that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make regulations relate not only to clause 1(1), which abolishes the 80 per cent. reimbursement arrangements, and—the hon. Gentleman was right—the consequential amendments to section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 but also to section 81(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which covers recovery from compensation payments, and the other provisions covering the extension of SSP entitlement to working women over the age of 60. They would all be covered in the transitional provisions. They are clear and practical and have been tested and worked well. We should reject the amendments.
  The amendment to delete clause 2(2) would undermine the existing primary legislation contained in section 175(2) to (4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It deals with the arrangements under which subordinate legislation in the form of regulations, orders or
  1192
  schemes is exercisable by the Secretary of State. The provisions are already enshrined in primary legislation and have therefore been agreed by Parliament.
  We all take it absolutely for granted—but it must be spelt out somewhere—that orders and regulations have to be exercised by a statutory instrument, to use a technical phrase. The clause that the Opposition want to omit is not new, and is no more sinister than the word "saving" to which I have already referred. It is a regular feature of social security legislation under Governments of both parties, I understand, and it enables the more mundane and non-controversial detail of legislation to be implemented by way of secondary legislation, or statutory instruments.
  The amendments have nothing whatever to do with the merits of the proposed changes. We want to ensure that employers can know well in advance the nature and detail of the changes that they will be asked to administer from next April. The amendments would no nothing to assist them in that aim. Employers need clear and comprehensive instructions. Under the Bill, they will know exactly what they will have to do, and I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Dewar: May I first thank the Minister for his courtesy. I found what he had to say genuinely interesting. I shall not pursue the amendment to delete clause 2(2). I did not think that it was sinister; I thought it was impenetrable. I failed to understand it, but the Minister has helped me.
  I shall resist the temptation to follow up the Adam and Eve joke made by the Minister of State. I shall certainly not repeat the sotto voce comment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) that involved fig leaves and referred to various parts of the Bill.
  I have learnt a little from what the Minister said. I liked his explanation of savings. He was right—I was blinkered and was thinking entirely about finance and cash, as I am sure other hon. Members were. It must be something to do with the Thatcher years— perhaps I have become infected. It never occurred to me that there was a homely dressmaking analogy, and that, after the necessary legislation had been cut out, a few fragments would be left that could be put into the rummage bag to be used on another occasion. I believe that that was how the Minister was describing the process.
  The fact that something is a common feature is not necessarily a reason for accepting it. If I was in a perverse mood—which I am not—I would try to look through the text again and square what I found there with the elegant explanation that I have been offered. I do not think that doing so would help the Committee; it might entertain me, but that would be a selfish test to apply. I believe that we should let the matter rest.
  It may be that suspicious Conservative Members have assumed that we shall press the group of amendments to a Division, but in view of the explanation that we have heard, I do not think that it would be sensible to do so. I realise that it is not my decision and is a matter for the Committee. I shall go one better than advising my right hon. and hon. Friends about what to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 29, leave out 'and' and insert 'shall'.
  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'be' in line 2.
  No. 6, page 2, leave out lines 4 and 5.
  Mr. Dewar: I am afraid that the amendment takes us back into familiar territory. There is nothing mysterious about the group of amendments. The subject matter is familiar, because it is often raised when we discuss the passage of Bills through Committee—with good reason. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has sidled into the central position on the Front Bench to deal with the issue. We definitely need fresh thinking, and I fear that the Minister of State may, over many years, have been conditioned to resisting sensible proposals.
  The text of amendment No. 4 does not tell the Committee much, but it is necessary to consider the amendment to get the argument into play. The amendments take a slightly unusual form, but involve the old business of affirmative and negative resolutions. It is clear that the Bill has raised strong feelings and much interest outside the House. The textual arguments on the intentions, nuances and opinions of the various lobbying organisations have made it clear that there is a willingness to express opinions. The issues involved are considerably sensitive.
  In those circumstances, it would be sensible if orders—even if about transitional matters, halfway house arrangements and the position that arises when the rule change occurs halfway through a period of an employee's sick leave—should be brought to the notice of the House; we should not wait for an hon. Member to notice them and challenge them.
  I immediately concede that I believe that the regulations to which I am attempting to apply the positive and affirmative procedure do not refer to the rebate level—the rebate has gone. That is one effect of the Bill that the simplest of us, even I, have managed to grasp. Nevertheless, the amendments raise important matters, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to view them sympathetically.
  11.45 pm
  I realise that there is always a balance to be struck. I am quite keen on balances. I sometimes have difficulty in seeing things in black and white. That is perhaps one of my faults. I accept that the Executive always have arguments for saying that they do not want the system to become gummed up with too many applications of the affirmative resolution procedure. Clearly, if legislation is subject to the affirmative resolution, it must come at least before a Committee, if not to the Floor of the House. If we insisted on that procedure being applied in respect of a wide sweep of legislation, we might make this place even more unworkable than it is at the moment.
  I am not suggesting for a moment that there are not arguments counterbalancing what I am saying—points to be put on the other side of the argument—and in the few minutes that we have left before the guillotine descends, hon. Members may want to address that point. My own view, however, is that there is enough real meat in the arguments that we have had over the past few hours and in previous days—and, indeed, over a number of years—to justify the use of the affirmative procedure in respect of regulations that are tied, and trace their ancestry back, to
  1194
  this particular unfortunate Bill. In short order—because I am anxious to hear the Minister—I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.
  Mr. Hague: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we are talking about the old business of the affirmative and negative resolution procedures—in this case in connection with the transitional or consequential provisions. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to give fresh thought to the matter, and I have done so. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will find that I have reached a familiar, though balanced, conclusion.
  It has been the normal practice of the Government and of previous Governments to ensure that statutory instruments that give effect to non-controversial provisions consequential on the main changes in legislation should be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. Parliament has previously decided which statutory instruments it wishes to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and therefore to closer scrutiny. Those are specifically referred to in section 176 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
  For instance, the Government's proposals to change the present small employers' relief provisions, which will he brought before Parliament in due course, are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. But the transitional arrangements, which give effect to non-controversial transitional and consequential provisions, are not unreasonably left to be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure.
  Any statutory instruments made under clause 2(3) will, of course, be laid before Parliament, open to the tabling of a prayer and debatable in the House. But I can assure the hon. Member for Garscadden and the Committee that any statutory instruments introduced under the arrangements in the clause will not be controversial—even in his estimation; they will be aimed solely at providing sensible—[Interruption.] It is a shame that the hon. Member for Garscadden is not listening to my explanation, after all the questions that he asked.
  Such statutory arrangements will be aimed solely at providing sensible workable arrangements so that employers can continue to recover an appropriate amount of SSP liability for days of sickness up to and including 5 April and for the other objectives listed previously.
  Mr. Flynn: The Minister would assist himself and the Committee if he put away his brief and explained what he is talking about in simple language.
  Mr. Hague: To those of us on the Conservative Benches, it was both simple and very clear.
  The Opposition's amendment amounts to a delaying tactic, and I suppose that, as such, it has been successful. If we were acting in the balanced way in which Governments and Parliament actually do, the hon. Member for Garscadden would withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Dewar: I do not intend to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that I will have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. For a horrible moment, I thought that the Under-Secretary was about to say that he had taken a wise judgment on the matter—a new concept in DSS mythology; at least he avoided that.
  The explanation that the hon. Gentleman produced was that Parliament had previously decided which statutory instruments should be subject to which procedure. I do not

  1195
  want to be one of those who talks over-zealously about the sovereignty of Parliament, but the fact that Parliament has previously decided does not stop Parliament deciding something different and, on this occasion, rather more sensible.
  I accept—and as a reasonable man I made a nod towards the fact—that these are subsidiary regulations and not central to the thrust of the Bill, but they may be important to individuals. They certainly are important to the future good government of statutory sick pay. As Labour Members have repeatedly made clear, we believe that statutory sick pay has been weakened and that uncertainties have been built in by the misconceived measure that is being put on the statute book.
  In those circumstances, it behoves the House to keep a measure of control over what is happening, and the best way to do so is to ensure that regulations laid under section 2, as it will become when the Bill is enacted, are brought to the attention of the House so they can be properly examined and the arguments—
  It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Second Reading of the Bill, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 303.

  Division No. 46]

  [11.50 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Canavan, Dennis

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainger, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Battle, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beggs, Roy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Bob

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blair, Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Blunkett, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davis, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davis, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Denham, John

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

  Dewar, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dixon, Don

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eastham, Ken

  1196

  Enright, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fisher, Mark

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foulkes, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Fraser, John

  Maxton, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meacher, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  George, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gould, Bryan

  Morley, Elliot

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mudie, George

  Gunnell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hain, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Olner, William

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pendry, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Keen, Alan

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Short, Clare

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Eddie

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McAllion, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stevenson, George

  McCrea, Rev William

  Stott, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  1197

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wilson, Brian

  Turner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wise, Audrey

  Wallace, James

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wareing, Robert N

  Young, David(Bolton SE)

  Watson, Mike

  Welsh, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Jake Thompson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bates, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Elletson, Harold

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomnley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Peter

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Gallie, Phil

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butcher, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Butler, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorst, John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clappison, James

  Hague, William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Conway, Derek

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Cran, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  1198

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townsend Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Needham, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watts, John

  1199

  Wells, Bowen

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld>

  Whitney, Ray

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whittingdale, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN then put forthwith the other Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand Part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 306,Noes 232.

  Division No. 47]

  [12.03am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ashby, David

  Couchman, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

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

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baldry, Tony

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dicks, Terry

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dover, Den

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dunn, Bob

  Booth, Hartley

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boswell, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowden, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bowis, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Churchill, Mr

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Clappison, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gill, Christopher

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  1200

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclean, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stern, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Sumberg, David

  Marland, Paul

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marlow, Tony

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  1201

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thomason, Roy

  waterson, Nigel

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Widdecombe, Ann

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

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Willetts, David

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Alistair

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davidson, Ian

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Denham, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dewar, Donald

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Eastham, Ken

  Beggs, Roy

  Enright, Derek

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Etherington, Bill

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benton, Joe

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Faulds, Andrew

  Blair, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fyfe, Maria

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

  Gapes, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garrett, John

  Burden, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Graham, Thomas

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hutton, John

  1202

  Ingram, Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Tessa

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Randall, Stuart

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Leighton, Ron

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lewis, Terry

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooney, Terry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McAllion, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCrea, Rev William

  Salmond, Alex

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Simpson, Alan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Madden, Max

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

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Maxton, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Meacher, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Alun

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Straw, Jack

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wallace, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Patchett, Terry

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND. 1974 c. 28
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 300, Noes 220.

  Division No. 48]

  [12.16 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Alexander, Richard

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dunn, Bob

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Amess, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arbuthnot, James

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Emery, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashby, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fry, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Herfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  1204

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knox, Sir David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scoot, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Sir (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lord, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sumberg, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mates, Michael

  Sykes, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Richard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Andrew Mackay.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Allen, Graham

  Ainger, Nick

  Armstrong, Hilary

  1205

  Austin-Walker, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Barnes, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Barron, Kevin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Battle, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Grocott, Bruce

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gunnell, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Hall, Mike

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Hanson, David

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hardy, Peter

  Benton, Joe

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Heppell, John

  Betts, Clive

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Blunkett, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Boyes, Roland

  Hoey, Kate

  Bradley, Keith

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Burden, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hutton, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Ingram, Adam

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jowell, Tessa

  Connarty, Michael

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lewis, Terry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lloyd Tony (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cox, Tom

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cryer, Bob

  McAllion, John

  Cummings, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McCrea, Rev William

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dafis, Cynog

  McLeish, Henry

  Darling, Alistair

  McMaster, Gordon

  Davidson, Ian

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Denham, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martlew, Eric

  Dixon, Don

  Maxton, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Meale, Alan

  Dowd, Jim

  Michael, Alun

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Eastham, Ken

  Milburn, Alan

  Enright, Derek

  Miller, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Flynn, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fraser, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Fyfe, Maria

  O'Hara, Edward

  Gapes, Mike

  Olner, William

  Garrett, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gerrard, Neil

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Parry, Robert

  1206

  Patchett, Terry

  Snape, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pike, Peter L.

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stott, Roger

  Prescott, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Randall, Stuart

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wallace, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Rendel, David

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Watson, Mike

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Short, Clare

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. John Spellar.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  CITATION, COMMENCEMENT, FINANCIAL PROVISION AND EXTENT
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 208.

  Division No. 49]

  [12.30 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burt Alistair

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butcher, John

  Amess, David

  Butler, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Chruchill, Mr

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clappison, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bates, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Colvin, Michael

  Bereford, Sir Paul

  Congdon, David

  Biffen Rt Hon John

  Conway, Derek

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Day, Stephen

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brazier, Julian

  Devlin, Tim

  Bright, Graham

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dicks, Terry

  Browing, Mrs. Angela

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  1207

  Dover, Den

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan, Alan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Legg, Barry

  Eggar, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Elletson, Harold

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lloyd, peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Faber, David

  Luff, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Mackay, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Malone, Gerald

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marland, Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Mates, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  Merchant, Piers

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Milligan, Stephen

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mills, Iain

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Bary (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  1208

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shersby, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Trend, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waldern, George

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waller, Gary

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Ward, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sproat, Iain

  Waterson, Nigel

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Stephen, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Stern, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Allan

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilkinson, John

  Sumberg, David

  Willetts, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wilshire, David

  Sykes, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thomason, Roy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  Thurnham, Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn Jeremy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barron, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beggs, Roy

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Boyes, Roland

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Enright, Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, Stephen

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foulkes, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Fraser, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clelland, David

  Garrett, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  George, Bruce

  Coffey, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cohen, Harry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Connarty, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Graham, Thomas

  Corbett, Robin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  1209

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gunnell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hall, Mike

  Olner, William

  Hanson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Heppell, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoey, Kate

  Pope, Greg

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prescott, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rendel, David

  Hutton, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Illsley, Eric

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jowell, Tessa

  Short, Clare

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Simpson, Alan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Rt Hon Jon (M'klds E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Snape, Peter

  McAllion, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spellar, John

  McCrea, Rev William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stevenson, Geroge

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  McMaster, Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Tipping, Paddy

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Wallace, James

  Mahon, Alice

  Walley, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N

  Maxton, John

  Watson, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wilson, Brian

  Milburn, Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Worthington, Tony

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mudie, George

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to the Third Reading [Queen's consent signified]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 204.

  Division No.50

  [12.44 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ashby, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  1210

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gorst, John

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Hague, William

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hannam Sir John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butler, Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hendry, Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Cash, William

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Horam, John

  Clappison, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on A)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'd ford)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kinfedder, Sir James

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Gerby N)

  Dover, Den

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

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Eggar, Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Elletson, Harold

  Leight, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Faber, David

  Lord, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Macgregor, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mackay, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Madel, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  1211

  Malone, Gerald

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marland, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spring, Richard

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Sproat, Iain

  Merchant, Piers

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Stern, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stewart, Allan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Streeter, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sykes, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thomason, Roy

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N )

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trend, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trotter, Neville

  Pickles, Eric

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walden, George

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Ward, John

  Richards, Rod

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Riddick, Graham

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whitney, Ray

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Willetts, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Derek Conway

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boyes, Roland

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barron, Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Cambpell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cann, Jamie

  Benton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  1212

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, Lynne B'ham S O)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW )

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jowell, Tessa

  Coffey, Ann

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cohen, Harry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lewis, Terry

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corston, Ms Jean

  McAllion, John

  Cousins, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cox, Tom

  McCrea, Rev William

  Cryer, Bob

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  McWilliam, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Madden, Max

  Darling, Alistair

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Davidson, Ian

  Mahon, Alice

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Denham, John

  Meale, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Michael, Alun

  Dixon, Don

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Milburn, Alan

  Dowd, Jim

  Miller, Andrew

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Moonnie, Dr Lewis

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Eastham, Ken

  Morley, Elliot

  Enright, Derek

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Etherington, Bill

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mudie, George

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mullin, Chris

  Fatchett, Derek

  Murphy, Paul

  Faulds, Andrew

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Hara, Edward

  Flynn, Paul

  Olner, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Fraser, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pike, Peter L.

  Gapes, Mike

  Pope, Greg

  Garrett, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  George, Bruce

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Prescott, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Graham, Thomas

  Radice, Giles

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Reid, Dr John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rendel, David

  Gunnell, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hall, Mike

  Robinson, Peter (Belfaslt E)

  Hanson, David

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hardy, Peter

  Rogers, Allan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Rooney, Terry

  Heppell, John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoey, Kate

  Salmond, Alex

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Short, Clare

  Hood, Jimmy

  Simpson, Alan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Spellar, John

  Hutton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ingram, Adam

  Stevenson, George

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Stott, Roger

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  1213

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wilson, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Wise, Audrey

  Walley, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Watson, Mike

  Welsh, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Social Security (Contributions) Bill [Ways and Means]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the following provisions—
  National health service allocation
  (1) In section 162(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (destination of contributions: national health service allocation), in paragraph (a) (allocation in case of primary Class 1 contributions) for the words from "the earnings" to the end substitute "to much of the earnings in respect of which those contributions were paid as exceeded the lower earnings limit but did not exceed the upper earnings Limit;".—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind those wishing to catch my eye during the debate that they should note that the ways and means motion covers only the changed method of allocating national insurance funds to the national health service, dealt with in clause 2 of the Bill. Nothing else is relevant.
  12.55 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): As the House is aware, a ways and means resolution is needed where there is provision for payment into the Consolidated Fund of receipts that do not arise from taxation. In this case, such a resolution would provide for payments to be made out of the national insurance contributions received by the Secretary of State towards the cost of the health service, as provided by clause 2 of the Bill that will be before the House tomorrow.
  The Bill is concerned primarily with an increase in national insurance contributions. The ways and means resolution does not relate to that in any way. It is required only for the minor corrective provision concerning the health service allocation out of contributions, with which we are taking the opportunity to deal in the Bill. There is no change in the policy intention and no change in existing practice. I invite the House to approve the motion.
  12.59 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The resolution is important because it is clearly retrospective. The House has always been critical of retrospective legislation, particularly where it applies to taxation and, for the purposes of the Bill, the resolution is the equivalent of taxation.
  I recall the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Was the hon. Gentleman a Member then?
  Mr. Cryer: No, I was not.
  That Act made retrospective application for Clay Cross councillors. The then Conservative Opposition spokesman said that such retrospective legislation was the slippery slope to fascism. Given the Conservative party's attitude at that time, it is relevant to inquire why the Government now seek a resolution that provides retrospective authority for expenditure of some £4·6 billion.
  That is a large sum of money, yet it appears that there is doubt about the vires of the actions of Ministers in

  1215
  allocating money from national insurance contributions. Why, therefore, have the Government taken so long to table a resolution to clarify the position? It is quite extraordinary. This is a not inconsiderable sum.
  Has a legal challenge to the Government been mounted on the basis of previous legislation? How was previous legislation so defective that it now needs the authority of the House to authorise expenditure of £4·6 billion?
  Will the Minister assure me that the resolution will not impose a retrospective charge on any national insurance contributor, because people outside the House would be outraged if, after making national insurance contributions, they found that a resolution passed on 15 December made them liable to make extra payments? That is the basis of my opposition to retrospective legislation, especially on taxation.
  If the resolution does not impose retrospective increases in national insurance contributions, Ministers must therefore have made payments to the national health service from existing national insurance contributions, which they have found to be at fault. This resolution is not simply a routine resolution but a resolution to get Ministers off the hook, their having made payments of doubtful legal validity.
  The resolution says that it
  "shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of section 1 of the Social Security Act 1989."
  It seems extraordinary that, in effect, the operation of the resolution is backdated four years. There may be a straightforward, innocent explanation for the delay in these payments, about which there is a scintilla of doubt, but how wide is a scintilla? Is it a slight chance, or has an official in the Department told Ministers, "We have been making payments of £4·6 billion to the national health service without any legal authority"? Or did some phrase in an earlier piece of legislation raise that scintilla of doubt in the minds of civil servants? Perhaps they said, "We had better have belt and braces: we had better make the position absolutely clear in the latest Social Security (Contributions) Bill."
  That, however, does not answer the final question: why have the Government chosen to rush the Bill through at the last minute, when for four years the legislation has contained a defect requiring this enormous payment to be authorised by a ways and means motion?
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the problems with social security legislation is the way in which the Government rush into it. They have guillotined such legislation on many occasions, denying the House and the public an opportunity to scrutinise it properly. As a result, mistakes and uncertainties creep into the legislation.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We should bear in mind that the Bill to which the motion relates is due to churn its way through the legislative sausage machine tomorrow. We dealt with the money motion relating to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill the night before the Bill was debated. We are similarly disadvantaged in the present instance. The procedure has been reversed: we are dealing with a ways and means motion before discussing the Bill's content.
  It is important to raise such issues on as wide a basis as possible within the terms of the motion. We have not benefited from any debate on the Bill; there has been no
  1216
  Second Reading debate, in which the Minister could have explained the background and procedures in detail. In rushing the Bill through, the Government are adopting a highly defective procedure, forcing the House to consider the ways and means motion in order to hear the Minister's proposals—cold and separate from the Bill itself. That was the Minister's choice, not that of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was right to raise the issue. It is possible that, in the ordinary course of events—if the Government had not imposed this curious procedure on the House—no question would have been raised about the motion. However, in this instance we have had no Second Reading debate and no debate in Committee of the whole House, which we had for the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
  According to the Minister, the basis of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill was the fact that many people were taking time off because of illness: he claimed that the sick pay obligation should be transferred to employers, who would chase employees and try to stop them being ill. That is a curious view of human nature. I wonder whether the payments authorised by the ways and means resolution will improve the national health service and the health of the nation—if, indeed, any fresh money is involved—to such an extent that the Statutory Sick Pay Bill will not be necessary. The Government often boast about all the money that they are spending on the NHS, but it does not seem to be having any effect.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it just possible that the hon. Gentleman—who is an excellent performer—is going a little wide of the issue?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): No. As far as I can tell, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is fully within the rules of order.
  Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know from your ever vigilant handling of our proceedings that no hon. Member need try to usurp your excellent conduct in the Chair. Indeed, I would defend you against any of the insults implied by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
  I do not want to go on for too long. However, my questions are serious. We have some vivid memories. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will recall vividly the criticisms advanced against retrospective legislation, from the Conservative Benches, in respect of the Clay Cross councillors. If those criticisms were advanced honestly at the time, I wonder why the Government are moving this retrospective ways and means motion asking Parliament for authority to pay £4·6 billion since 1989. I assume that that money has already been handed over to the national health service. However, we do not know whether that has happened because the matter is not very clear and we have not had the debate that we should have had.
  I hope that the Minister will respond to those serious questions. He moved the motion very briefly. He could have taken the opportunity to elaborate on some of those points and that would have pre-empted a contribution from the Opposition Benches. It would have saved parliamentary time. I am having to make up for the Minister's very short introduction and that is not something that I particularly like doing.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend keeps referring to the £4·6 billion for the national health service. Is he absolutely confident that the Government will ensure that that money is spent to improve the national health service?
  Mr. Cryer: If the Government do not do that, they will be in breach of this ways and means motion. This motion is the ways and means of finding the money to authorise that expenditure by the Government. Under the heading
  "Financial effects of the Bill",
  clause 2 refers to
  "authority for payments amounting to some £4·6 billion from October 1989 to April 1994."
  Part of that £4·6 billion must be paid from money that has yet to be received and the motion authorises that money until April 1994. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister precisely what future payment is involved and how much of the ways and means motion represents retrospective payment for earlier defective legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made an important point. If the House tries to short-cut legislative procedures, including ways and means motions and money resolutions, it is always possible for defective legislation to be passed. In some cases, Ministers may make illegal payments if the legislation is defective.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I agree about many things. However, I believe that there are occasions when retrospective legislation is important. My hon. Friend referred to a series of incidents in relation to the Housing Finance Act 1972. I voted for that retrospective legislation, as did my hon. Friend. I have also voted for other retrospective legislation.
  Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South agree that the NHS badly needs this money? It would be better for us to argue that the money should be paid over because the NHS needs it and there are a thousand and one reasons for allocating it. I do not want my hon. Friend to go in too hard on the Minister. I would like to think that the money will be spent. It is important to find out where the money will go. Is it going to go on management or on nurses? Will it be used to reduce the waiting lists?
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There are two parts of authority which the ways and means motion gives. One is for the retrospective part-that is, presumably, money already spent. However, since clause 2 provides for payments up to April 1994, of course there are future payments, and that is the section that I was dealing with.
  I want an assurance that the Minister will follow only the authority of the ways and means motion, which means that money has to be spent on the national health service. Of course, as a side issue—we cannot go into it in too great detail—about the actual allocation of the money, it is a block amount, and the ways and means motion does not specify the detail within the national health service. However, I take it that it is agreed that, when hon. Members vote on the motion, they will expect that the money will be spent on an care for patients and not on administrative superstructure.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend should strongly refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it might be perfectly all right for retrospective legislation to approve the actions of other
  1218
  people but not of Ministers. If we allow Ministers to act illegally and then to get retrospective legislation to make their illegality legal, we will dramatically reduce the power of the House of Commons to control Ministers.
  Mr. Cryer: I share the view about retrospective legislation. There are occasions when retrospective legislation might be necessary—there is no question about that. My point about the ways and means motion and its retrospection is not of my making: it was put forward during the period of the previous Labour Government by the Conservative Opposition, when they used the phrase, not I, that retrospective legislation was the slippery slope of fascism. That was not said by a wild-eyed, goggle-eyed, right-wing Conservative Back-Bench extremist, although that is a possibility with so many candidates for such a description present: it was said by the Conservative party spokesman. It seems fair that we should judge the actions and attitudes of the Government in assessing the ways and means motion on the basis that what was right in 1974 to 1979 should be right, in their values, today.
  I do not want to go on much further, but those are two important points. The point that I was making before dealing with my hon. Friends' contributions was essentially that, if Parliament does not carry out the legislative procedure with some deliberation, we will find ourselves confronted with errors. It seems as though we are confronted with such an error, which is being put right by the Bill and the ways and means motion, authorising the collection of the money and its expenditure. This is a lesson, because it is a hurried procedure. As I have said, it is topsy-turvy. We have to spend some time on the motion. My hon. Friends are seeking information from me when, really, it should have been given on Second Reading and perhaps in Committee, when we dealt with the Bill on the Floor of the House. That is why this time is being taken.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I am listening to my hon. Friend's contribution with great interest and no little concern. I must confess that I had not intended even to be present to hear him, but I am extremely pleased that I remained.
  I am very worried about the £4·6 billion, or the amount which apparently has already been paid, because I do not understand where it has come from. Am I to gather that there are billions of pounds floating and being allocated at whim by Ministers without authority? Why have we not known about that? I regard myself as a fairly assiduous and conscientious Member, and I am disturbed to find that money is apparently floating and that it has not been obvious to me that that is happening. Does that tell us something not only about procedures for the scrutiny of Bills, but about procedures for the scrutiny of Government accounts? Can my hon. Friend shed any light on that matter for me?
  Mr. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She probably was not able to rush rapidly into the Chamber to hear the commencement of my speech—probably because her access was blocked by other hon. Members who were trying to get in to listen.
  I mentioned the point that she raised at the beginning of my speech. If there were a defect in the legislation which requires the ways and means resolution, it is extraordinary that it has taken at least four years to be found out. I ask the Minister whether the matter was discovered by the

  1219
  potential legal challenge or whether it was simply that a civil servant discovered that there had been a defect in the drafting of the legislation from a previous Act.
  This is a technical exercise, according to House of Commons research paper 93/113, to remedy a defect. The ways and means resolution is to authorise an enormous expenditure, and we have not heard what proportion of that has already been paid. It authorises future expenditure, up to April next year, of a huge sum of money, £4·6 billion, without any explanation. We are going to give authority to the Minister because of the defect.
  By way of comparison, if that had happened in a local authority, the Government would have been fulsome in their criticism. Ministers are in a privileged position, because if local authority councillors had been in a similar position and had discovered that payments were not completely justified legally because of a defect in a resolution that had been passed by a committee, they would have faced surcharge.
  Ministers do not have that terrible penalty over their heads. If there is a defect, they simply come back to the House with a ways and means resolution and a bit of legislation to accompany it, and they are free of any encumbrance. It is worth bearing it in mind that the House produces legislation in which perfectly ordinary, decent people who are trying to do their best in the community make an error and find themselves facing bankruptcy, disbarment from office and even the seizure of their possessions.
  The Minister is in exactly the same position as a councillor would be. A mistake has been made for which he is seeking rectification to authorise what had been illegal payments. I hope that the Government do not accept the position with smugness. While we disagree with their policies, we accept that they are not spending part of that money on luxury yachts to go off to the Caribbean.
  Mr. Skinner: How does my hon. Friend know?
  Mr. Cryer: So far as we know, they are not doing that. Let us assume charitably that they are not.
  The Government should take a more charitable view of the work of local authorities, bearing in mind the fact that the House has been confronted with a ways and means resolution and retrospective provision, something which they were so critical about in the past. We should examine retrospective provision with a critical eye. I hope that the Minister provides comprehensive answers, because the House deserves nothing less.
  1.23 am
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and to express my disappointment that the Minister made so little effort to explain to the House why the resolution was necessary and why it took the Government so long to realise that there was a problem. Technically, of course, the Minister cannot address the House again unless we give him permission to do so. It seems discourteous of the Minister not to have given a full explanation of what went on in this case.
  I suggest to the Minister that, on the whole, it has been a good policy that, when Ministers apologise and make it clear that mistakes have been made, the House has been
  1220
  understanding. However, when Ministers try to brush something under the carpet and get away without making a full explanation, the House has been less sympathetic and can take a lot longer to find out what is happening. I was disappointed that the Minister did not make more of an attempt to explain why the errors occurred, and why they took such a long time to come to light.
  Many of my constituents are concerned about their national insurance contributions and whether the rules can be changed retrospectively. The Bill is another example of that. We are always warned to look at the fine print, but as the government can change the fine print retrospectively, what is the point of looking at it?
  The Government have to set out clearly on what occasions they can justify retrospective legislation. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can think of occasions when retrospective legislation can be justified, but it is hard to justify when it is used because Ministers have made a mistake. Did they make the mistake when the original legislation was drafted? Have they had further advice that the payments they are making are illegal? Is it that the original legislation was not covered by an appropriate ways and means resolution? What exactly has gone wrong?
  Mr. Skinner: I wish that my hon. Friend would listen carefully. I was making the point in a philosophical fashion—there are bound to be occasions when Labour Members believe in the government intervening and planning to level things out to help those at the bottom to get to the top. There are bound to be occasions when retrospective legislation is necessary to put right the wrongs of 14 years of Tory government. I am not talking about this specific Bill, I am talking in a philosophical fashion. I wish that my hon. Friend would get back on the rails.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that, but I shall not be drawn into the wrongs of the past 14 years.
  It is reasonable for retrospective legislation to put right what has happened outside—in other words, to make life better for our constituents. However, it is not right to use retrospective legislation to let Ministers off the hook and make legal what they did, which was probably illegal. That dramatically reduces the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons. If they are challenged in the House of Commons and found to have done something wrong, or if they are challenged in the courts, they can simply come back here and reverse the decision.
  Mr. Skinner: I am not arguing that point. I have no doubt about what I would do with that lot, but I shall not go into that now. There are occasions when we have to use retrospective legislation for our own purposes. On this occasion, there has been a gigantic fiddle somewhere. I want my hon. Friend to expose it in the next couple of hours.
  Mr. Bennett: I can understand that my hon. Friend might want me to expose it in the next couple of hours, but I certainly do intend to use the next couple of hours. I shall leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend to make his own speech.
  I want the Minister to explain why it was necessary to use retrospective legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We repeatedly find that Ministers have amazing powers by regulation to

  1221
  correct mistakes. However, the Social Security Act 1989 and the Social Security Act 1975, which were absolutely littered with statutory instrument-making powers, were not correctable by regulation.
  Mr. Skinner: We are surrounded by Select Committees examining everything under the sun. I do not get involved in that sloppy consensus, but they are supposed to be looking into every nook and cranny. They go on fact-finding tours all over the world to examine how other people are doing it, yet somehow or other £4·6 billion has slipped away. It is high time that members of those Select Committees did a job of work and found out where that money is going. Does my hon. Friend agree? Will he do something about it? Is he a member of a Select Committee? Yes, he is. Can he deal with it? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is the Chairman of a Select Committee.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments do not have the power to go tripping, as do members of other Select Committees. They have the boring task of examining a large number of regulations. In the last 12 months, the Committee has considered almost 3,000 regulations from a Government who talk about deregulation. The speed at which regulations appear is remarkable. It is odd that, in this instance, the Government did not in four years introduce a regulation to make good the legislation.
  Mr. Cryer: Library background paper No. 113 makes it clear that, by a fluke, the House must consider a Ways and Means resolution, as we are, and primary legislation, because section 143(4)(a)(ii) of the Social Security Adminstration Act 1992 states that primary legislation is required where an increase in primary or secondary class 1 contributions is greater than 0·25 per cent. The House laid down the provision that requires the matter to be dealt with by primary legislation—much to the embarrassment, I suspect, of the Ministers who brought this measure before the House.
  Mr. Bennett: I am puzzled by my hon. Friend's statement, because there is often a limit, by way of regulations, by which the Government can increase or decrease an amount of money. If the Government want to exceed the total set out in primary legislation, they can do so in two stages. If the Government had known what they were doing, instead of dealing with the matter in one stage by way of primary legislation and a ways and means resolution, they could have altered the amount each year since 1989—and thus remained within the limit to which my hon. Friend referred. The Government ought to explain why it was necessary to approach the matter in the way that they did.
  My constituents are most concerned that the Government do not appear to know what they are doing or to be accountable to Parliament—and that when it appears to suit the Government, they simply change the rules.
  I shall be reluctant to hear the Minister's explanation because he should have paid the House the courtesy of providing one at the beginning of this debate. As he has already spoken, another Minister should wind up.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In these circumstances, the Minister has the right of reply. He moved a substantive motion.
  Mr. Bennett: I am glad to hear that the Minister has the right of reply, and I shall listen to him with interest.
  Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) expressed concern over where the money will go, but my concern is where it is to come from. Where are the Government obtaining £4·6 billion? No explanation is given in the Bill. Can my hon. Friend shed any light on how much of that £4·6 billion has already been paid out and how much has still to be paid? If not, perhaps he will ask the Minister to do so. We cannot tell how much money has yet to be injected into the national health service as a result of the Ways and Means resolution.
  Mr. Bennett: Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer my hon. Friend's questions. It is a pity that he did not cover such points at the beginning of the debate.
  1.34 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would like to have heard what the Minister had to say on the subject, because I have listened carefully to my two hon. Friends talking about this money and, quite frankly, I am staggered by that £4·6 billion. It seems as though this legislation was very fortuitous. We thought initially that the legislation was a one-off job, arising out of the unified Budget.The Government said that they had to get it done quickly because of the need to sort out the employers' payments and all the rest of it, and to make sure that everything was straight and above board.
  Several times I have seen Ministers on television, saying that it is necessary to get the legislation through this week, and that they cannot wait another moment because of all the intricacies that follow in getting the legislation through. Then I listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and I find out that a massive sum of £4·6 billion seems to have been unaccounted for all that time.
  We have so many people examining such things. There is a body called the Audit Commission. Does the Audit Commission follow those events? I should like to know. Earlier I mentioned Committees; they are set up to examine things. The Chairman comes on the television and says that they have discovered £200 million gone missing, and there is a big story. It is in every newspaper. They talk about a great find when they have uncovered some drugs. Yet here tonight, in the twilight hours£it is "The Twilight Zone", is it not?—suddenly we are told that £4·6 billion is unaccounted for.
  I want to know, is it £4·6 billion? If the Government have not been able to identify it since 1989, how can we be sure that we are talking about 4·6 billion quid? The Minister can get up and intervene if he likes; I shall not object to him speaking as many times as he wants, provided that we can get to the bottom of the matter. I would like to know from the Minister: is it £4·6 billion? What guarantees do we have that it is not more than that?
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend must be aware that, on past occasions, with both money resolutions and ways and means resolutions, because the Government have not covered every detail of what is required they have often had to come back to the House for another money resolution or ways and means resolution. My hon. Friend's question about the current ways and means resolution is

  1223
  therefore very pertinent because we do not want to have to come back here late at night because the Government discover another £1 billion that is not authorised.
  Mr. Skinner: It was only because I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South discuss it in the first place that I realised what a total mess the Government have made of it. The Government have been involved in many scandals in the past 14 years, but I ask you—£4·6 billion, and they conveniently come and drop it across us just before Christmas. Is it not handy? I suppose that is the reason why we have got that tonight. It could all have been revealed and dealt with in the debate tomorrow.
  Of course, the debate should have gone on anyway. We should not have been having this debate tomorrow. My hon. Friend and I and one or two others made a proposition some time ago in which we demanded that we carry on for several more days before Christmas. We could have examined the issue in that time. We could have had perhaps a three-hour debate or a full day's debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) could have been in and he could have taken account of it and then he could have set up his Select Committee. It could have examined the matter in detail and perhaps might have stopped the Government from doing this.
  I think that the Government should still stop. They ought to have the decency to pull this legislation out because we do not know whether the sum is £4·6 billion; they have plucked the figure out of the air. We are told that it will go on until 1994. Which element is the part from 1989 until today and how much continues after that? As far as I know, the Minister never explained all that, so we are in the dark about that sum of money, some of which is retrospective. I have a point, and if the Minister gets up to speak again, it could be the end of the debate.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): Sit down.
  Mr. Skinner: I am prepared to, provided that I will get the chance to speak again.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, first, the Minister only took a minute to introduce this ways and means resolution and, secondly, when Members on the Government Benches shout out that they want the debate to finish, it is because they do not want debate? They are the people who make proud boasts about controlling public expenditure, yet they do not want a debate. The Government have produced this back-to-front system, wherby we have to deal with the money resolution before the debate on the Bill, when they could have explained everything. Yet Government Back Benchers want to cut out debate entirely.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows only too well that the Minister only took one minute and those Back Benchers seem to dismiss £4·6 billion because, after 14 years, the Government are full of arrogance and contempt, not just for people like us, but for the British people. They have been in power that long, they think that they can get away with anything. A gang behind them thinks that all they have to do is back the Minister and that is the end of it. It is a pity that no Members of Parliament from the Tory
  1224
  Benches have the guts to understand—£4·6 billion has been plucked out of the sky. What could we do with that? Where should it have been spent? That is what I would like to know.
  Mr. Cryer: On the health service.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes. It might have saved all those hospitals from being closed. I saw it announced today on the television that the Government are shutting Bart's. I wonder whether they were taking that into account when Golden Virginia was talking about shutting Bart's and all those other hospitals. I wonder whether she asked, "What about this £4·6 billion?"
  As far as we know, money has been available. The Government cannot tell us; they do not even know whether £4·6 billion is the correct figure and they have not told us how much will stretch over into 1994. The whole business is a can of worms—it stinks to high heaven.
  I am fed up with Ministers saying that the Labour party wants to spend money right, left and centre. They are spending money and they do not even know it. They sacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he lost £10 billion in an afternoon, and he was nowhere near a betting shop. Some of the Tories cheered because the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had got the sack for losing £10 billion in an afternoon. No one held him up with a gun, did they? It just went. Some of the same Ministers are glorying in the fact that the ex-Chancellor now has to look after the safe at Rothschilds. I would not have him handling the safe if I were Rothschilds—not after losing £10 billion —[Laughter.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member has taken wing, so to speak, but I remind him of the narrow nature of the ways and means motion before us.
  Mr. Skinner: I was just making an analogy. There has been a constant discussion on both sides of the House about the loss of £10 billion in an afternoon, after the demise of the exchange rate mechanism, which some of us had been trying to persuade the Government to withdraw from long before. Now we find, late at night, that £4·6 billion has suddenly been plucked out of the thin air before a debate takes place tomorrow, and no one seems to know how it has come about.
  It is retrospective legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who has just come in, and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) know all about retrospective legislation, because they have been involved in trade unions which have been hammered by such legislation.
  It is a scandal that the Government are carrying on in this cavalier fashion with other people's money. There are people in this country who do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. People are lying on the streets. Yet the Government come along and tell them that there is £4·6 billion—if it is £4·6 billion. Who knows—it could be £8·6 billion. It is high time the Government were held to account.
  The sad thing is that Tory Members are attacking Labour authorities because they spent an extra couple of bob. The Government introduced the rate support grant, or the equivalent of it, the other week. They told local authorities that they would be capped if they did not stick

  1225
  to the levels set, and they said it again yesterday at the Welsh local government review. It is always the same. Yet the Government can lose money hand over fist.
  I should like to know what will happen to the £4·6 billion when it gets to the health service. Who will get the money? Will it be given to the management? We hear all these stories about the increase in the number of managers in the national health service. I should like to know precisely where the money will go. I do not want the Minister to tell me that he cannot explain it because he is not in the Department of Health. I am fed up with Ministers saying that they do not know the details.
  The other day, I was flabbergasted when I heard Lady Thatcher speaking on television. She had the gall to tell us that she did not understand things in detail because she dealt with only the big issues. This is the same woman who followed the Belgrano in the Falklands war. She watched it every inch—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the point.
  Mr. Skinner: I am sticking to the point. I am saying that the Government have plucked £4·6 billion out of thin air—they cannot explain it—and a former Prime Minister now has the gall to tell us that she did not follow things in detail. After a year-long miners' strike, who does she think she is kidding?
  Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is asking where the £4·6 billion will go. I understand that some of the money has already gone, so we should be asking where it went. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister—if my hon. Friend cannot supply an answer—about not only where the £4·6 billion or the amount that has already gone came from, but what it was spent on if it was taken without authority for the purpose described in the motion? Presumably, when the Government raised the money from national insurance contributions it should have been earmarked for some purpose. If some of it was taken without authority for the NHS, what went short which otherwise would have received money raised from people's contributions?
  Mr. Skinner: Where has the money gone? Let us assume that £2 billion has gone. We do not know where it went. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) is in a position to find out.
  Tonight, the Government should pull off this ways and means resolution in so far as it affects the £4·6 billion, or they should do it tomorrow. Tomorrow, there should be a manuscript amendment in which we call for that part which is included in the Bill to be taken out and then my hon. Friend, who is on the Select Committee for Health, together with her colleagues, should set up an investigation and find out where the money went.
  One thing is certain: the people in my constituency have not seen that money spent, because waiting lists in the health authority in Derbyshire have spiralled. I can tell the House where some of the money might have gone. It might have gone to line the pockets of those Tory spivs who run the health authorities up and down Britain.
  That is a fair bet. We keep reading about massive wage increases for the spivs who run the health authorities, and some of them have been lining their pockets left, right and centre. When the Select Committee discusses the matter, I want my hon. Friend the Member for Preston to find out how much of the money has gone to finance the people
  1226
  running the health authorities, which ought in any case to be democratically controlled. That is another subject that I want to deal with; I shall come to the quangos later.
  Mrs. Wise: In addition to the interesting points that my hon. Friend is making, would he care to reflect on the brass neck of Ministers who can deem things to have taken effect, although they should have been done four years ago, and to contrast that with the Government's rigidity on time limits for making benefits claims? People with excellent reasons for not having made a claim are told, "No, there is no statutory authority for any retrospective payment." Why do the Government not apply that reasoning to themselves?
  Mr. Skinner: We all know that the money has not gone into the social fund. People used to have a chance to apply for some assistance, and various entitlements, and if they failed they could appeal against the decision. People have no chance to appeal now; all that has been taken away. The Government have gone on in that way for the past 14 years, but now they have to learn the lesson that they no longer have a majority of 150 or 100. They are down to 17. Who knows, the majority may be even lower in 12 months' time. There are the Ulster Unionists, who, according to—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what I am going to say. What he is talking about is not relevant to the matter under discussion.
  Mr. Skinner: What I am trying to say is—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I know what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say; I am telling him that he should not be saying it.
  Mr. Skinner: Everybody should be aware of what is supposed to be a narrow ways and means resolution in connection with the Government's ability to carry through their legislation tomorrow. Normally that would be run of the mill. But it has been discovered that £4·6 billion, some of which is retrospective, is referred to in the Bill but not explained. You cannot tell me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we can afford to turn a blind eye and allow what would normally be a technical resolution to slip through when my hon. Friends the Members for Preston and for Bradford, South have identified £4·6 billion that has suddenly been discovered by this tinpot Government.
  Mr. Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the blanket nature of the ways and means resolution? It simply asks for £4·6 billion. There is no account of how the money has been spent, and nothing in the Bill or in the explanatory and financial memorandum about how the balance of the money to be authorised under the resolution until next April is to be spent. In other words, the alleged guardians of the public purse have brought a generalised ways and means resolution to the House with no explanation. My hon. Friend will want to demand chapter and verse of all the expenditure covered by the £4·6 billion.
  Mr. Skinner: That is what I am demanding. The heading is:
  "Financial effects of the Bill",
  and we had better get back to those, because I have been called to order. We have a narrow technical ways and means resolution which could mean anything, and the explanatory and financial memorandum says:

  1227
  "Clause 2 provides authority for the future payment of some £1 billion per year to the National Health Service out of National Insurance contributions."
  We are not complaining about that, because we understand that money raised in this way can be used for the national health service. However, clause 2 also authorises payments amounting to "some £4·6 billion". "Some"—that is a fancy word in respect of large sums of money. What does it mean?
  I challenge all the clever accountants and auditors among Conservative Members who work for all the posh City firms: if the word "some" was used in that context in a set of accounts, would they accept them? Would they accept the phrase "some £4·6 billion"? Why do not the Government state clearly what is meant by "some"? They do not because they do not know—it is another Lamont job. We could be talking about £14·6 billion.
  This is the Government who constantly tell people at general elections not to vote Labour because Labour will borrow money, but they live in never-never land. The Government are living on tick and they have the cheek to include the word "some" under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill". They should say that the sum is exactly £4·6 billion, if that is the case. It is no wonder that the Government are in a hell of a mess.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Come on.
  Mr. Skinner: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell his constituents next door to the Isle of Dogs—on Canvey Island—that he is voting with the Government to allow "some £4·6 billion" to be spent although he does not know on what, he is not even sure whether it is £4·6 billion and the people of Canvey Island are being ripped off left, right and centre. He should explain that to them.
  Dr. Spink: The people of Benfleet and Canvey Island are interested in the fact that this year 115 patients are being treated under the national health service for every 100 who were treated just four years ago.
  Mr. Skinner: The people of Benfleet and Canvey Island have seen the waiting lists increase and be fiddled. They understand only too well that they are part of the 1 million casualties who cannot be treated under the NHS. I had to respond to the hon. Gentleman, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he seems to think that this is a trivial matter. I am talking about "some £4·6 billion" and I want an exact figure to be included in the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) used to be the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's Parliamentary Private Secretary. He is reckoned to be an expert on money, so will he tell me what "some" means in this context?
  Mrs. Wise: I am disappointed in my hon. Friend because he is, uncharacteristically, being too kind to the Government. I am correct in my stricture because he has not yet commented on the fact that we are not discussing only one error. Anyone could make one error, although most of us do not make an error amounting to £4·6 billion. The Government are not only having to deem something to be effective from 1989 but having to deem something—something else, presumably—to be effective from 1992. That means that there are at least two errors.
  1228
  My hon. Friend should be very severe with the Government. They are treating the matter with levity and seem to regard it as a huge joke, but they are having to correct two errors. If I had spent money that I did not have, on no matter what worthy cause, no one would be sympathetic if I told the bank or the House that I was deeming that I had it four years ago.
  Mr. Skinner: I do not think that they are errors; that is where my hon. Friend and I disagree. The phrase "some £4·6 billion" has been put in deliberately so that the Government can say, as they have done in the Scott inquiry, that the provision did not really constitute legislation or even an Order in Council. They needed to be able to pull the wool over people's eyes. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston accused me of being kind to the Government—I know that she did not mean it in this context—but the Government are carrying on in a shady manner. It is all part of the Government's corrupt activity.
  The financial memorandum also includes another sum. It states:
  "Clause 1 will increase contributions to the National Insurance Fund by some £1·9 billion in a full year."
  What are the Government coming to? What sort of shop are they running? Imagine someone going into a shop and asking, "How much is it?" and being told, "It is some £3." It is the same procedure as used for museums: people can decide whether or not to pay when they go into museums —some pay, some do not.
  The Bill associated with the ways and means resolution—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with clause 2 only.
  Mr. Skinner: I am talking on clause 2: I just mentioned the sum of £1·9 billion because it is another deliberate error designed to make the matter vague.
  Let us forget about clause 1 for a minute. In fact, according to Madam Deputy Speaker, we must forget it for ever.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Today.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, clause 1 can be debated tomorrow, which is, in fact, today. Parliament has a cock-eyed system —it is tomorrow now, but the debate is taking place today.
  Clause 2 mentions "some £4·6 billion", but only a few days ago, the Government made lots of mistakes over the Northern Ireland business. What happened? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was conscientious and so went to the Prime Minister and said, "I am awfully sorry. I offer my resignation because of the Government errors, whether or not they are deliberate."
  The Ministers should do the same over the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. Why have they not got the guts to go to the Prime Minister and say, "Here we are —we have made another series of mistakes. We are not sure on the amount of money, we do not know what it is for, where it has come from and where it has been spent." Ministers should have the guts to resign instead of coming to the Chamber and laughing like Cheshire cats as though it does not matter. There are people outside lying on the stones who have not got a roof over their heads, while the Government try to say that they cannot account for the £4·6 billion.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right to call for the Ministers' resignation. Will he bear in mind that the

  1229
  retrospective provision under the ways and means resolution goes back to 1989? The current Chancellor of the Exchequer has wreaked a wrecking path through several Departments, one of which was the Department of Health, and he may be responsible for the error. Will my hon Friend enlarge on that subject, because it worries a number of people, both inside and outside the House, to think that a man who may have been responsible for a serious error and the illegal payment of perhaps £3 billion or £4 billion is now in charge of the nation's finances?
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has told only half the story. He is right about the then Secretary of State for Health—the blue suede shoes man. In fact, his shoes are not blue—except when he has spilled ale on them. The other half of the story is that the current Prime Minister was in the Exchequer at about that time. He came from the belly of the banking establishment. He could not do a bus conductor's job, but finished up with Standard Chartered bank. It was a gigantic leap, as we all understand. Most Tory Members come from the belly of the banking establishment. Then they find out that £4·6 billion has gone missing—
  Mr. Cryer: Some £4·6 billion.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, some £4·6 billion. They find out that that sum has gone missing and they expect to pull the wool over my eyes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South is right: in view of what has happened, they ought to pack their clogs and get off out of it.
  The number of times that the Government tell us that we cannot handle money. I am fed up to the back teeth with coming in here and finding that this tin-pot Government have lost money again. And whose money is it? It is not theirs. They put taxes up left, right and centre. They do it in a different fashion, of course. "VAT is not tax," they say. "Insurance contributions such as those under discussion today are not really tax." Of course they are. Tax has gone up by the equivalent of about 7p in the pound in the past few years.
  That money belongs to people out there who are slogging for a living—those of them who have a job—or who are among the 4 million who are out on the stones. Those people would like to know where the money is going. Why has not Mr. Andrew Neil of The Sunday Times —the Tories' friend—exposed this scandal in his paper, which reckons to discover all these things? What has happened to all the BBC documentaries? From 1974 to 1979 we had a Labour Government; I know that it is a long time ago, but I remember it.
  Mr. Cryer: Me, too.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend and I remember those days. My hon. Friend remembers them particularly well because he was running the country then. I will give my hon. Friend credit: I cannot remember a single ways and means or money resolution that was incorrect during my hon. Friend's time.
  Mr. Cryer: There wasn't one.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend never stood up on a money or ways and means resolution in all that year and a half.
  Mr. Cryer: I assure my hon. Friend that the last Labour Government never lost £46, let alone £4·6 billion. We never had to put a motion such as this before the House in order to make up for illegal expenditure.
  Mr. Skinner: Now my hon. Friend tells me that he was not there in 1976; he must have joined a bit later, at the time of the Lib-Lab pact. They were dark days indeed.
  Mr. Cryer: I ought to correct my hon. Friend in case his irony is lost in the record of our proceedings, which may show that I joined at some time during the Lib-Lab pact. I assure my hon. Friend that I joined before that, in order to revive small industries and co-operatives, which enjoyed an unprecedented period of prosperity and happiness during my two years.
  Mr. Skinner: Let me make a quick comment in answer to my hon. Friend. We had a manufacturing base then. Now we are down to a manufacturing base of about 4 million, yet the Government talk about GATT and how we will suddenly jump off the springboard. We do not have a springboard to jump off—I will finish with that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South talked about ways and means resolutions then; and he talked about the fact that we never lost £4·6 billion—or, at least, the Government did not; I did not lose any. It is true that the IMF came in. Is it not odd that we hear all the talk about the IMF in 1976 and 1977, given that, although that should never have happened, it pales into insignificance compared with the £4·6 billion, and the £10 billion that the last Chancellor of the Exchequer lost in one afternoon? I took a principled position, along with some of my hon. Friends, on the IMF. North sea oil was round the corner. They should have told that Mr. Witteveen that they had the oil money. That is what they should have said to him. They caved in, but the money involved was peanuts compared to the £4·6 billion.
  It is 2.10 am and suddenly we have discovered that the Government do not know where the £4·6 billion has come from. Is it any wonder that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has to apologise about that backlog of disability claims every time he answers parliamentary questions? It is all part of the Government's approach to affairs.
  The Government are riddled with the idea that they need not care about ordinary people as long as they can sluther legislation through. We are coming to reckoning day, so Ministers had better be looking around for directorships in privatised industries before they are all swallowed up. When they are in opposition, they will need them. We will pass a Bill if I get my manifesto accepted—one Member of Parliament, one job. That will be one of the things that we shall do straight away.
  I have got to get back to "some £4·6 billion". Where will that money go? We shall pick up the papers in a week or two and read that the Department of Health is having new carpets fitted at Richmond house, which as just been decorated again. The Government will spend money like water, and perhaps we have alerted them to the need to stop it. Perhaps tonight's debate has put the mockers on it. I do not think that the Minister will understand that.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has raised a nagging doubt in my mind about the resolution. He may well be right. Bradford hospital trust, which was established by the

  1231
  Tories and is run by business men not for the national health service but as a first stage to privatisation, spent £250,000 on a new entrance hall to Bradford royal infirmary. It decided that it would create a better atmosphere. When someone who is bleeding to death is admitted to Bradford royal infirmary, he will have a better atmosphere as he passes through the doors and passes out. By authorising this resolution, we might be authorising that sort of payment, which was made a year or two ago —just as this some £4·6 billion was.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, the Government spend money on such things and if they get their way—I suppose that they will, because Conservative Members will trot through the Lobby at the appropriate moment—we know what will happen. I could think of a thousand and one things that the money could be spent on in Bolsover. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South mentioned spending money on insignificant things, but just think what we could do with this money. We should tell the Minister of the various ways in which we could help people in hospitals with that money.
  Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although it may be wrong to spend money on, for instance, Richmond house and new entrance halls, funding should be devoted to some aspects of accommodation? Is he aware that, in many parts of the country, including Preston, nurses are being turned out of nurses' homes for reasons that are by no means clear? The decision fails to reflect the value of having nurses on site and available on call to deal with emergencies or disasters. Nurses in Preston were given notive to quit two weeks ago and will be leaving just after Christmas. If some of the money were made available to prevent that from happening, it would be extremely well spent.
  Mr. Skinner: Of course it would.
  Apparently Westminster hospital has been closed, or is in the process of being closed—
  Mr. Terry Lewis: They have closed it.
  Mr. Skinner: So they have already closed it. I saw a march on television: people were marching through the streets to try to save the Royal Marsden, which is a cancer hospital. Yet here we are, having suddenly found £4·6 billion. We are talking about posh areas of London. I wonder what people think when they find out that the Government have misplaced £4·6 billion, or perhaps even more. I wonder what my hon. Friends' constituents think: all my hon. Friends know of people who want operations. They could have had those operations if we had known about this money.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend mentioned Westminster hospital, only a few hundred yards from here. It is now boarded up. Is my hon. Friend aware that the hospital that was built to replace it—and two or three others—was nearly £200 million over budget? Is it not possible, given the amount of overspending involved in the £4·6 billion, that that is part of the money that has been lost?
  Mr. Skinner: That is a relatively small sum compared with £4·6 billion.
  I was talking to a friend of one of my constituents today. Apparently, my constituent is in hospital. The hospital
  1232
  wants to get him out, because it has not enough money and beds—although he is not well enough to leave. It is trying to sort things out at the local authority end to get him out sooner rather than later; and here we are, talking about £4·6 billion that has gone missing. It is the same all over the country.
  The Government should pull the business off the Order Paper, and give us a proper explanation. We should be able to deal with the measure later, after January. Why should we allow it to slip through? All the Tories can get the majority, but if they had any decency in their hearts they would not allow it to go through now; they would put it to one side, so that we could deal with it later, when we know precisely how much money there is.
  Mrs. Wise: I think that one point has escaped my hon. Friend. There is an increasingly close and important interface between NHS provision for the population's health needs and community provision, which is dealt with via local government. Is my hon. Friend sure that it would not be better for the £4·6 billion—or however much of it remains to be spent—to go to local government, allowing it to remedy some of the faults in community care, rather than being spent for other purposes, however worthy?
  Mr. Skinner: I have no doubt of it, but we are living in the real world. We are talking about a Government who have been fiddling community care allowances. They reckon to have spent more money on that, but we know what they were up to: they were shifting the money, so that local authorities now have to find more money than is coming in. My hon. Friend makes an idealistic point—she is idealistic about these matters; I do not expect this lot to take any notice.
  Of course some of the money should go to local government. I can think of lots of ways in which we could spend it. We could improve the social fund allowances, instead of losing all the money somewhere in the ether.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend believes that the Government should pull the motion off the Order Paper and bring it back in January. I would like it to be brought back in January so that the Government can explain to us in detail where the part of the £4·6 billion which has already been spent has gone and where the balance of that money is going to be spent. Does not my hon. Friend agree that those who claim that they want to control public expenditure should tell Parliament where they have gone wrong, how much they have spent illegally and where they are going to go right in future?
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend was obviously not listening to me earlier. We all suffer from that from time to time. We make our speeches and then we switch off. However, I will reiterate the point for my hon. Friend's benefit, because he is on the right track.
  We know that the figure is "some £4·6 billion". We do not know whether it is precisely £4·6 billion. I suspect that the figure is "some £4·6 billion" because the Government want to leave a little leeway. However, that little bit of leeway could be £5·6 billion. The Government should take the motion away. They should not bring it back to the House tomorrow as that would be to quick. There must be proper examination. The motion should be returned to Parliament after the Christmas recess.
  We also want a breakdown of precisely what the £4·6 billion means and the information should be placed in

  1233
  the Library. We want to know how much has already been spent—if it has been spent. We want to know how much should be allocated for the next financial year. That information should also be placed in the Library. We want to know precisely where in the health service the money has gone; if it has gone there and where it is going in future.
  We want to know what projects the money is going to be spent on. It is not good enough for the Government to simply say that it is being spent on the national health service. My Opposition colleagues and I want to know exactly where the money is being spent. How much is going to the Tory spivs who run the health authorities? There should be a register—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are cantering around the course yet again.
  Mr. Skinner: There are some hon. Members in the Chamber who have not heard this before. I can tell by their eyes and body language that they are hearing this for the first time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, but I am not hearing it for the first time.
  Mr. Skinner: No, you are not and I will tell you something else. I think that you have understood everything that I have said because you have been very quick to point out that you have heard it already. That means that, unlike some of my hon. Friends, you have been listening. Do not get me wrong. That is important for a Deputy Speaker or a Speaker. I have been in the Chair. You have to listen. To sit in the Chair and listen is one of the most irksome duties.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Especially to have to listen to someone like you.
  Mr. Skinner: Or to listen to someone like the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who bores the pants off nearly everyone when he congratulates the Government every day. Quite frankly, I do not believe that his constituents believe all that tripe. I just wish that,m on occasion, the hon. Gentleman would intervene and have a crack at them. We might be more appreciative then.
  You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have been listening and she heard what I said. The new point that I was making was that a breakdown should be placed in the Library. Information about where the money has gone and where it is to be spent should be distributed to everyone. We should know how much is available for the next financial year and whether the totals are correct.
  Mrs. Wise: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given enough weight to the use of the word "deemed" in clause 2(3). I appreciate his suggestion and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, that the ways and means motion should be temporarily removed from the Order Paper and brought back later. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover agree that, at the same time as bringing back this item deeming the £4·6 billion to have been accumulated, which has apparently been spent without authority, it would be a very good idea for the Government to bring back another piece of retrospective legislation, since they are now into retrospective legislation, which would deem that they had never reduced the top rate of income tax?
  1234
  Just think how much money would be available for the national health service, community care and the many other things that people are crying out for if they extended the principle of deeming. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to listen to my point? If they brought forward a retrospective motion deeming that they had never reduced the top rate of tax, that would greatly ease the problems for which that £4·6 billion is intended.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member for Bolsover does not go down that road.
  Mr. Skinner: I am not going down the road that strays from the Bill£[Interruption.] We have set up a proper relationship here, and I am not going to spoil the ship for an ha'p'orth of tar. I shudder when I see the word "deem" —I do not know about anybody else. Every time I see the word, I think, "Hello, money here£solicitors and money." It is a fancy solicitor's word, is it not? One can always guarantee that, where the word "deem" appears, there is a solicitor and some money behind it. I am always a bit worried about that. I think that the word has been introduced to give vagueness and generality to what the Government are trying to say.
  I appreciate that we have discovered a scandal of gigantic proportions by the Government. Conservative Members laugh. They think that it is nothing. We are talking about £4·6 billion—retrospectively. People chide us when we talk about giving retrospective payments to others who are living on next to nothing. Conservative Members should tell their constituents that the Government have just discovered another £4·6 billion that they are not sure about—it might be £4·6 billion. It is time that they stopped their laughter, because it is born of arrogance and contempt not only for the House of Commons but for the British people who have had to find such sums.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: One aspect that we might not have to examine for the £4·6 billion is the social fund. I received a letter from my benefit office today, saying that, unfortunately, it is unable to give applications the same priority as it was earlier in the year and that it has therefore had to turn down one of my constituents. That shows that that section of the Department is not spending as much money as it should because it cannot meet demands that it would have granted if they had been made earlier in the year.
  Mr. Skinner: I explained earlier that we know some areas where it has not been spent. At the bottom of the matter is that we have only just had a unified Budget. We had a five-day debate on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech, yet—
  The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Serjeant at Arms please go to the Lobbies, to see if there is any reason for the delay?
  The House having divided: Ayes 249, Noes 41.

  Division No. 51]

  [2.30 am

  AYEs

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Alexander, Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Amess, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  French, Douglas

  Ashby, David

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Gallie, Phil

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Garnier, Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gorst, John

  Bates, Michael

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hague, William

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hannam, Sir John

  Booth, Hartley

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Harris, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hayes, Jerry

  Brazier, Julian

  Heald, Oliver

  Bright, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hendry, Charles

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Horam, John

  Burns, Simon

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

  Burt, Alistair

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butcher, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Butler, Peter

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jack, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cash, William

  Jessel, Toby

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Coe, Sebastian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Congdon, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Conway, Derek

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lair, Mrs Jacqui

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Legg, Barry

  Couchman, James

  Leight, Edward

  Cran, James

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

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

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Lidington, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lightbown, David

  Day, Stephen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lord, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Maclean, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dover, Den

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Dunn, Bob

  Mans, Keith

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Elletson, Harold

  Marlow, Tony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Faber, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Fabricant, Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  1236

  Mills, Iain

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Spring, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sproat, Iain

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Needham, Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steen, Anthony

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Sumberg, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sweeney, Walter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sykes, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thomason, Roy

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Twinn, Dr Iain

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Richards, Rod

  Viggers, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waterson, Nigel]

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wells, Bowen

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sackville, Tom

  Whittingdale, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wiletts, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Wood, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Barron, Kevin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Beggs, Roy

  Jowell, Tessa

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cryer, Bob

  McAllion, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McMaster, Gordon

  Davidson, Ian

  Mudie, George

  Dewar, Donald

  Olner, William

  Dixon, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Enright, Derek

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Etherington, Bill

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Short, Clare

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Graham, Thomas

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Hall, Mike

  Wise, Audrey

  Hanson, David

  Wray, Jimmy

  Heppell, John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mr. Terry Lewis and

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. David Hanson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sat in the Chamber for the last

  1237
  two and a half hours of that debate, and I listened with great interest to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We will deal with the main Question first.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Hanson(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in protecting the rights of the House. Some of us sat through the debate for two hours, waiting to hear the Minister's response to the important points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South. The Government produced a closure motion, which did not allow the Minister to answer those points. Will I, as a Member of Parliament, hear an answer to the important points raised by my hon. Friends, which the Minister refused to answer because of the closure? Will we have an opportunity to learn where the £4·6 billion has been spent and will be spent, and where that money is to come from in future?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: In my experience, the ingenuity of hon. Members in acquiring that information does not need further protection from the Chair.
  The House having divided: Ayes 251, Noes 37.

  Division No. 52]

  [2.45 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Alexander, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clappison, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

  Bates, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Andrew

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Elletson, Harold

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butcher, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butler, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  1238

  French, Douglas

  Newton, Rt Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Garnier, Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Page, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Paice, James

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Groffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hague, William

  Pickles, Eric

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Harris, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hawksley, Warren

  Richards, Rod

  Hayes, Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hendry, Charles

  Robertson, Raymond (Ad'd'n S)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Horam, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Scoot, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shaw, David, (Dover)

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, Sie Giles (Pudsey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shersby, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sims, Roger

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Knox, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sproat, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Leigh, Edward

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stern, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sumberg, David

  Lord, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Luff, Peter

  Sykes, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thomason, Roy

  Malone, Gerald

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marland, Paul

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Marlow, Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tredinnick, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Trend, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Merchant, Piers

  Viggers, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Walde, George

  Mills, Iain

  Walker, Bil (N Tayside)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Waller, Gary

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Needham, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  1239

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Wood, Timothy

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Jowell, Tessa

  Clelland, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Lewis, Terry

  Davidson, Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Enright, Derek

  Olner, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Pickthall, Colin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Pike, Peter L.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Graham, Thomas

  Short, Clare

  Hall, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hanson, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Heppell, John

  Wise, Audrey

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Eddie Loyden and

  Illsley, Eric

  Mr. Andrew Bennett.

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the following provisions —
  National health service allocation
  (1) In section 162(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (destination of contributions: national health service allocation), in paragraph (a) (allocation in case of primary Class 1 contributions) for the words from "the earnings" to the end substitute "so much of the earnings in respect of which those contributions were paid as exceeded the lower earnings limit but did not exceed the upper earnings limit;".
  (2) After subsection (6) of that section insert—

  "(6A) In the case of earners paid other than weekly, the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above to the lower or upper earnings limit shall be taken as a reference to the equivalent of that limit prescribed under section 8(3) of the Contributions and Benefits Act.".

  (3) The above amendments shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the 1992 Act; and corresponding amendments to section 134 of the Social Security Act 1975 shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of section 1 of the Social Security Act 1989.

  PETITION

    Denham Aerodrome (Noise Pollution)
    2.54 am
    Mr. Richard Page: I present a petition on behalf of the residents of Maple Cross in the district of Three Rivers just north of Denham aerodrome. This petition can be added to several others which have already been presented by hon. Members in the House who represent constituencies to the south, east and west of the aerodrome. The petitioners suffer from the noise pollution of light aircraft using Denham aerodrome, especially those undertaking circuit training and bumps.
    Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to pass legislation as a matter of urgency to implement the provisions of the "Review of Aircraft Noise legislation —Announcement of Conclusions" paper dated March 1993 following the consultation paper "Control of Aircraft Noise" published in August 1991; and that such legislation should establish a range of noise control levels for designated aerodromes, especially those where circuit flying is permitted; that such legislation should include provisions whereby the polluter pays for the cost of remedying any breach of the legislation and meeting any conditions which may be imposed by the lead authority to reduce substantially the noise generated by light aircraft; and that frequency of aircraft engaged in circuits and bumps should be restricted when flying from aerodromes in the vicinity of residential areas and that they be precluded from such operations on all weekends during the months of June to September inclusive; and that the House gives the Secretary of State powers to designate such aerodromes where circuit and bumps are permitted as distinct from those where normal take-offs and landings are permitted for light aircraft travelling between one aerodrome and another.
    Wherefore your petitioners will, as in duty bound, ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
    Notice being 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 6, Noes 82.

    Division No. 53]

    [2.56 am

    AYES

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Graham, Thomas

    Heppell, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mudie, George

    Mr. Jimmy Wray and

    Short, Clare

    Mr. Kevin Hughes

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Amess, David

    Butler, Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Chapman, Sydney

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Cryer, Bob

    Bates, Michael

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

    Batiste, Spencer

    Davidson, Ian

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dewar, Donald

    Booth, Hartley

    Dixon, Don

    Boswell, Tim

    Dover, Den

    1241

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Gallie, Phil

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Page, Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Paice, James

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hague, William

    Pawsey, James

    Hall, Mike

    Pickthall, Eric

    Hayes, Jerry

    Pickthall, Colin

    Heald, Oliver

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hendry, Charles

    Richards, Rod

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Illsley, Eric

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jack, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jessel, Toby

    Sackville, Tom

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Smith, Dennis

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Spencer, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Stabley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Steen, Anthony

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Trend, Michael

    Lewis, Terry

    Whittingdals, John

    Lightbown, David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Willetts, David

    Loyden, Eddie

    Wise, Audrey

    Luff, Peter

    McMaster, Gordon

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

    Malone, Gerald

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  PETITIONS

    High Speed Rail Link
    3.7 am
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by 7,722 residents of the borough of Gravesham. They are petitioning that improvements should be made to the proposed route of the high speed rail link as it passes through Kent. The petition shows the very strong feeling that injustice may be done, especially to the residents of Pepper Hill, Northfleet.
    I shall paraphrase for the sake of brevity. It prays that the route that skirts the estate of Pepper Hill in a tunnel should go under the electricity substation; that the vertical alignment of the rail link should pass under the A227 Wrotham road, and that the line, as it passes through Singlewell, should be in a tunnel.
    It also prays that the high speed rail link should not be designated for freight traffic, thereby avoiding the need for passing loops with their attendant impact on nearby residents. It prays that full consideration be given to the environmental concerns of the residents of the borough of Gravesham in the planning of the entire route as it passes through the borough.
    I beg leave to present the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Clinical Waste Incinerator, Letchworth
  3.8 am
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I present the petition from the residents of Letchworth and the surrounding area who have formed a group to oppose a proposed clinical waste incinerator in Stotfold road, Letchworth.
  Letchworth is the world's garden city and it is proposed to put a clinical waste incinerator with a 75 ft high chimney and a huge building in the green belt on the edge of the town near a school and a large housing estate. Some 19,105 of my constituents fear for their health. They are worried about the pollution that will be caused, the unsightly nature of the development, the noise and traffic, and the fact that the incinerator is to be positioned in the green belt. They have therefore requested
  "that the House of Commons should invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the planning application for a Clinical Waste Incinerator … and deal with it personally."
  They have also requested
  "the Secretary of State to take full account of the extent of public opinion against the proposal."
  The petition concludes:
  "And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray".
  To lie upon the Table.

  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  3.9 am
  Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health for so generously and courteously providing me with some of his time. His gesture is much appreciated by me, as well as by my constituents. I am delighted to see that I am supported by some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who wishes to be associated with the opposition to the consultative document issued by the Warwickshire health authority as it relates to St. Cross hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry knows Rugby exceedingly well, and has done so over a considerable period. I am delighted to have his support. I know that he represents several thousand of his constituents.
  We are certainly not alone, because with us also is my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is sitting in his usual place. I know that, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he wishes to make a substantial and, I am certain, worthwhile contribution to our deliberations.
  I wish to refer tonight to a consultation document produced by the Warwickshire health authority and the Warwickshire family health services authority that suggests that Rugby St. Cross hospital should be downgraded from a general to a local hospital. St. Cross has benefited extensively from recent health reforms. In the early 1980s, Rugby became a health authority in its own right—a measure for which I can take considerable personal credit. As a result, a new maternity unit was built, together with a new pathology laboratory, improved operating theatres and wards, a new boiler room and kitchens, and even additional facilities at Admirals Court for those who are mentally handicapped. The hospital was transformed.
  Three years ago trust status was introduced and, not surprisingly, Rugby was once more in the forefront and was in the first wave. It benefited substantially with a £17 million extension in geriatric and psychiatric care. The hospital of St. Cross now provides an excellent service to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Daventry. It serves a population of about 110,000 people.
  I recently wrote to every GP who uses St. Cross and all, without exception, said that they oppose any reduction in the current quality and type of service. One GP said:
  "I am heavy user of the St. Cross laboratory facilities. I, like you, feel the hospital of St. Cross is essential in its current format for the wellbeing of the local community".
  A second GP wrote:
  "Our business plan from the very outset included specific wording in which we expressed our support for St. Cross and our intention to continue referring unless there were overriding other considerations. We did not believe that the quality of service would be particularly increased by sending patients further afield".
  Incidentally, I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend that Leader of the House is now present for this important Adjournment debate. His presence does not surprise me, as I know that he is an assiduous listener on such occasions. I am delighted to welcome him.
  A third GP writes:
  1244
  "We are a fund holding practice and we use St. Cross for 76 per cent. of our in-patient activity and 96 per cent. of our out-patient activity, so you can see that any down-grading of St. Cross would seriously affect our patients."
  A fourth GP writes as follows:
  "As a fund holding practice we make considerable use of St. Cross. The practice are very happy to support in whatever way we can the campaign to ensure that St. Cross stays open."
  A fifth tells me:
  "If the proposed changes go ahead at St. Cross hospital, it will result in a vastly reduced standard of medical care for the people of Rugby and surrounding areas."
  I strongly support those informed medical views. The House will understand that here are doctors speaking, not simply members of the public. I do not say that in any disparaging way. I merely seek to draw the attention of the House to the views expressed by those who know best the importance of our local hospital.
  I argue that the consultation exercise and the consultation document are inept. The document, which is interestingly entitled
  "Tell us what you think about future health authorities in Warwickshire",
  was not sent to the Rugby NHS trust or, indeed, to Members of Parliament. I put it to the House that that was a studied act of discourtesy. The trust actually had to ask the local press for a copy of the consultative document, and I, in turn, only received my copy from the trust as a photostat. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that that scarcely constitutes helpful or efficient consultation by the health authority.
  On receipt of the document, I immediately wrote to the chief executive of the Warwickshire health authority and to the Warwickshire FHSA. I reminded them that waiting lists at St. Cross are better than average and that the quality of health care is indeed much appreciated by patients and their families. I said that for St. Cross to be fundamentally changed in the way suggested by the Government would be an act of health service vandalism. I have not changed my declared view. The hospital would lose all emergency orthopaedics and trauma, and all emergency work in general surgery and gynaecology. The accident and emergency service would be reduced to a daytime-only minor injury service.
  The document asks whether people in Warwickshire would be prepared to travel a little further. I suppose that everything hinges on how "little" is defined. In the case of my constituents, that would mean travelling to Nuneaton or Coventry or Leamington Spa—considerable distances in each case. Incidentally, the estimated additional cost to the ambulance service has been estimated by the chairman of the Rugby NHS trust as more than £500,000 annually. I will return to the question of added ambulance costs a little later in my speech.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that there is a much more important issue than cost, and that is time. So often in health matters, speed is the essence of recovery; for my constituents, a longer journey to get to any one of three other hospitals could literally mean the difference between life and death. The document says that the length of time that people have to wait for hospital treatment might be reduced by concentrating some services in fewer locations. That is much easier said than done. It suggests that there is some spare medical capacity. If there is no spare capacity, new build will be required, which seems an inefficient way of using scarce resources.
  I was interested to read in the document, under the heading, "Our Role As Purchasers":

  1245
  "Our ability to influence services arises from the fact that we are a major purchaser of them."
  This is the big stick. So much for patient choice or for fundholder choice. It clearly does not matter what patients or GPs want; the health authority knows best. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry nodding in agreement. He and I know this hospital and many of the GPs involved. It would clearly be most unfortunate if the health authority were to decide which services were to be provided and where. That precept undermines one of the fundamental principles that has been laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Elsewhere, the document says:
  "We feel"—
  note the word that is used—
  "that we cannot continue to buy the present level of hospital services in Rugby. The problem is that individual hospital specialties are relatively small and potentially more expensive than the same specialties provided in Coventry and Nuneaton."
  I ask the House to note the word "potentially". The authority clearly does not know what costs are involved, but that did not stop it issuing a document that has caused the utmost worry and concern to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry and for Blaby. I should like to emphasise the strength of that concern.
  The health authority, I was advised only this week, has so far received more than 13,000 letters all opposing its proposals. A petition has been raised and it bears more than 90,000 signatures. In addition, public meetings have been arranged and attended by literally thousands of my frightened constituents. I organised a meeting on 5 November and 750 people attended inside the hall—its maximum capacity—and a further 500 were outside. Of those 500, 200 were still present an hour and a half later when I went out to address them, having completed the meeting inside. A march was organised and attended by more than 3,000 people. I have received well over 600 letters on this one specific issue.
  I was elected Member of Parliament for Rugby in 1979, 14 years ago. I have never known such a spontaneous expression of anger and outrage as that caused by the Warwickshire health authority's document.
  I referred to the concerns that were expressed by GPs. They are not alone. Warwickshire county council carried an unanimous resolution expressing
  "total opposition to any reduction in the range, level and quality of general hospital services in Rugby."
  Rugby borough council, at a meeting last night, approved the following:
  "That this council totally opposes the implementation of all suggestions outlined for Rugby in the Warwickshire Health Authority's consultative document and furthermore requires that all services which are currently provided by the hospital of St. Cross be maintained."
  I should like to quote a letter from North East Warwickshire community health council. In its letter addressed to me and dated 29 November, it says:
  "My council received the Discussion Document … and were unanimously of the view that essentailly they would not wish to see the present pattern of purchasing of health care changed within Warwickshire."
  St. Cross is close to the Ml, the M6, the M45 and the Al-M1 link. I need hardly remind the House of the incidence of motorway accidents, and the need to get victims to hospital as quickly as possible. The fact that St. Cross is likely to lose its acute services, and the fact that its accident and emergency services are likely to be
  1246
  substantially downgraded, will not help those who lie injured on motorways, even if they live or are outside Warwickshire.
  This evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry handed me a letter that he had received from the Two Shires ambulance MHS trust. It is dated 6 December. I was interested to read the following:
  "There are large sections of the motorway"—
  the M1, that is—
  "the A5 and A45 where road accidents are taken to the Rugby hospital. From an Ambulance Service point of view, it would mean that when an emergency crew is deployed to be patient in the north of the constituency, it would be committed much longer to taking the patients to either Coventry, Nuneaton or Stratford on Avon. This would mean that additional emergency crews would need to be employed at an approved cost of £150,000 which needs to be considered against the savings made by reducing the service at St. Cross."
  I remind hon. Members that £150,000 is additional to the figure of £500,000 that I mentioned earlier, which was quoted to me by the chairman of the Rugby NHS trust.
  So far, I have met Ministers—here again, I must acknowledge the courtesy that I have received from my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been very helpful. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has also given me advice, and has listened to my arguments: I am grateful to him for his courtesy. I have met the chairman and chief executive of Warwickshire health authority, and the chairman of the regional health authority; I have condemned the health authority's ill-considered proposals absolutely. Let me make it abundantly clear that I will oppose them in every way I can, both inside and outside the House.
  3.27 am
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I also welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who has a special interest in the issue: I believe that a friend of his was in the hospital concerned.
  As the House will know, my constituency stretches from the outskirts of Leicester in the north to the Warwickshire and Northamptonshire border in the south. In the north, we have three excellent hospitals, all of them in Leicester: Leicester royal infirmary, Leicester general and the Glenfield. All three have become NHS trusts in the recent past and are now progressing extremely well. Indeed, Leicester itself is very well served by its hospitals. I have visited Leicester general and the Glenfield in the past month and was greatly impressed by all that I saw of the new trust hospitals.
  The south of my constituency—parts of which are some 25 miles from Leicester—is a largely rural area. There, it is a very different story. There is an excellent local hospital in Lutterworth, but, for a general hospital dealing with accidents and emergencies, my constituents look to Rugby.
  In the south-west of the constituency, many villagers and residents have Rugby telephone numbers. They shop in Rugby; they use Rugby station; and, of course, they use St. Cross hospital in Rugby. If the accident and emergency service is taken away, my constituents will have to travel not the five miles—perhaps—to Rugby, but as many as 20 miles to Leicester, Coventry or Nuneaton, which is even further. That is not acceptable, either in regard to the time

  1247
  factor—people should not have to rush to deal with some acute necessity in an emergency—or as a service to the local community.
  If the Government's NHS reforms are to be successful, they must be perceived to be successful. The Rugby NHS trust—St. Cross hospital—was in the first wave of NHS trusts. It has been a great success and an example to the country. A parish councillor wrote to me saying:
  "I myself spent a considerable time as an inpatient last year in St. Cross hospital and I was very impressed, not only by the enthusiasm of the staff for their newly acquired trust status but also by the professional and caring attitude shown."
  There is no doubt that St. Cross is a success as a hospital for the area and as a trust.
  As a Leicestershire Member, I would not presume to dictate to Warwickshire health authority how it should run its affairs. My role is to speak for the needs and interests of my constituents in south-west Leicestershire. Their interests are undoubtedly best served by a first-class general hospital in Rugby.
  The proposals to downgrade the hospital to local status are unwise. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in asking Warwickshire health authority to reconsider the proposals and keep St. Cross as a general hospital for all the people in the area—for those in Rugby and also those in the south-west of my constituency.
  3.30 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr.. Pawsey) on securing the debate in the ballot and on getting this far procedurally. I came to the House at 6 am yesterday. One of the more excitable Conservative Members used the procedure known as "I spy Strangers" and we ended up with no Adjournment debate. That was the end of my sleep. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was confronted by the same problem this evening, but he defeated that ploy as a result of the large number of hon. Members around the House who were waiting to hear his debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has described the importance of the matter to him and to his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) also explained the importance of the hospital for his patients who use the hospital.
  The purchaser, the health authority for the county of Warwickshire, has issued a discussion document in which it raises the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said, of downgrading Rugby hospital. Let us recap briefly on a purchaser's role.
  The activity of purchasers has now been entirely separated from hospital management. The job of the bodies with the budget for the health needs of the people in their areas is to purchase the health services required by the people in that area. The purchasers have to take decisions based on that. They are now powerful bodies as the have most of the purchasing budget.
  Budget-holding GPs also have influence, but the main influence on health services will increasingly be the purchaser, health authority or health commission in each area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
  1248
  State for Health has said, the abolition of health regions places an even greater onus on the smaller number of health authorities now that there are more mergers of health authorities.
  The purchaser's duty is to balance the needs of residents in each area in terms of access and proximity to general hospitals or other health services with other matters, which will sometimes include questions of cost.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth pointed out, quoting from the discussion document which has led to the debate, that costs have increased. My hon. Friend pointed out also that it has said that the costs of the Rugby hospital, specialties being relatively small, are potentially more expensive. That is the key word, because it has obviously taken the view that there could be an element of costs involved. Those matters have to be balanced by the people who have to make such choices.
  The fact that my hon. Friend has said that fund-holding GPs wish to use the hospital and do use the hospital, and of course have the same cost pressures on them, is important because they are taking decisions to use the hospital, which might be a very good sign. However, when such matters come to Ministers, that is not always the case. It is only when there is a major change of services and there are objections from the local community health council that we see such proposals and have to balance all those factors.
  My hon. Friend has made a strong case for his constituents who wish to continue to use the hospital and that is an important factor which must play a central role in any discussion of the nature and location of services in an area. I congratulate him on having put the case so strongly.
  As my hon. Friend said, and as I have repeated, it is a discussion document, not a statutory proposal. The health authority, in its wisdom, has decided that it should have an additional stage in the procedure. Instead of just coming up with a proposal and putting it out for statutory consultation, it has come up with a document which raises certain possibilities and it has asked people to comment. People have clearly commented—my hon. Friend commented tonight. He has received a great many letters on the subject and I can confirm that we also have received an unusually large correspondence. Those matters must be taken into account.
  My hon. Friend will understand, I hope, when I tell him that I cannot comment in detail on this matter because it has not come to Ministers for consideration, but I should like to make two general statements about it. First, my hon. friend, as the local Member of Parliament, has an important voice in the matter and he has used that voice to great effect tonight. Secondly, in any matter to do with intentions, health authorities—this is not just about Warwickshire, it is about others—cannot just act in isolation and come up with ideas that they have plucked out of the air; they must take people with them and that includes local Members of Parliament.
  I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend was not sent a copy of the document. That was remiss of the health

  1249
  authority. I have no doubt that it has taken steps to make amends. The health authority has to take local Members of Parliament and other representatives with it. I assure my hon. Friend that I am certain that the health authority will listen very hard to local voices and that what has been said in the House tonight will be an important contribution to that debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Four o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost of advertising by his Department has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Expenditure on advertising prior to 1987–88 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure on advertising for each year from 1987–88 is as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  4,978

  1988–89

  3,888

  1989–90

  5,483

  1990–91

  5,174

  1991–92

  22,698

  1992–93

  15,962

  Expenditure for each of the past 12 months is as follows:

  £

  1992

  November

  328

  December

  375

  1993

  January

  —

  Febryary

  —

  March

  14,901

  April

  352

  May

  —

  June

  1,439

  July

  2,617

  August

  302

  September

  1,056

  October

  989

  Magistrates
  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure independence of justices' clerks when advising magistrates, other than in individual cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I are entirely committed to protecting the independence of justices' clerks when advising magistrates. The legislation which with Parliament's approval will implement the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice", will establish a framework within which the respective roles and responsibilities of justices' clerks and their magistrates courts committees can be clarified. The legislation will also make clear that justices' clerks are not liable to direction in respect of the legal advice given to magistrates in court.
  632
  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will now publish the text of the proposed statutory provisions regarding the judicial independence of magistrates and the independence of legal advice given to magistrates by their clerks in individual cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Bill which will implement the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice", is expected to be introduced to the House before the Christmas recess, after which the full text will be published in accordance with the usual procedure.

  Efficiency Commission
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the recommendations of the Efficiency Commission on the cost of legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Efficiency Commission has, since it was set up in 1986, made a number of recommendations designed to improve the operation of the criminal legal aid system. It is not possible to produce a precise figure for the implications which those recommendations which have been accepted have had on the cost of legal aid. It is, however, likely that the resulting savings have been small relative to total expenditure on criminal legal aid.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current time scale for the work of the Efficiency Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is currently no timetable assigned to the work of the Standing Commission on Efficiency.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which proposals of the Efficiency Commission have been implemented since its establishment.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Standing Commission on Efficiency is made up of senior representatives from the Bar, the Law Society, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Lord Chancellor's Department. It has provided a forum for the formulation and discussion of ways of enhancing communication between the legal profession and the courts and thereby improving the disposal of criminal business. The commission has considered a large number of papers on a wide range of topics with the common aim of speeding up or streamlining both pre-trial processes and in-court procedures. In 1990 each of the members of the Efficiency Commission published a "Guide to Good Practice", which drew together the discussions of the group and provided reference documents in which each agency set out how it would discharge its responsibility to provide an efficient and effective service. The best practices set out there inform the practical operation of a wide range of services carried out by practitioners and courts. The commission has also been instrumental in devising a form for the provision of information by defence solicitors to assist courts when making listing decisions. A research project into the causes of delay in criminal proceedings was commissioned earlier this year. The findings of that research were submitted to the Royal Commission on
  633
  criminal justice, and consideration and implementation of any of its recommendations will take place in the context of the discussion of the wide-reaching proposals of the Royal Commission.

  Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what complaints he has received about delays in the taxing and payment of(a) expedited costs and (b) other costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In relation to costs in civil proceedings in the High Court and the county courts, I have received no more than 20 written complaints about delays in taxation over the last 12 months. Payment of costs in civil proceedings is a matter for the parties. The courts provide a range of procedures which can be used to enforce an order for costs, but it is for the parties to decide whether they want to use them.

  With regard to the delays in the taxing and payment of costs in criminal proceedings, the information is not recorded under this particular definition. The best available information shows that I have received nine complaints from Members of Parliament and 12 complaints from members of the public this year.

  No central record is kept of the number of complaints which may be received by the courts direct.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the efficiency of the administration of justice in respect of the prompt taxing and payment of costs awarded by(a) the High Court and (b) other courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Delays in respect of civil taxations have been reduced generally over the last eighteen months. The situation is being kept under review and remedial steps will be taken, if necessary. On the question of payment of costs in civil proceedings, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to an earlier, related question.

  In respect of improving efficiency in the payment of costs in criminal proceedings, targets are in place for the payment of those costs which are being met nationally. Some problems have been experienced by the south-eastern circuit taxing teams and additional resources have been provided to assist them in meeting the targets set. Additionally, my officials are currently looking at how the standard fee system in the Crown court may be extended.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to award Rainbow the management of the national lottery.

  Mr. Sproat
  None. The licence to run the national lottery will be awarded by the director general after a competitive process.

  BBC Northern Ireland
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many redundancies have been effected in all grades in BBC Northern Ireland in each year from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand from the BBC that the information is not readily available before 1991. The total number of redundancies in BBC Northern Ireland in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Number

  1991

  105

  1992

  4

  1993

  37

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many people were employed in BBC Northern Ireland in all grades in each year from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand from the BBC that the information is not readily available before 1987. The total number of people employed in BBC Northern Ireland in each of the last seven years, in December, is as follows:

  Numbers

  1987

  701

  1988

  675

  1989

  697

  1990

  671

  1991

  566

  1992

  570

  1993

  533

  Radio Stations
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list radio stations which are wholly or mainly aimed at serving ethnic minority listeners.

  Mr. Brooke
  The following radio stations are wholly or mainly aimed at serving ethnic minority listeners:

  Choice FM (South London)

  Harmony Radio (Coventry)

  London Greek Radio{North London)

  Spectrum Radio(Londonwide)

  Sunrise East Midlands (Leicester)

  Sunrise FM (Bradford)

  Sunrise Radio (West London1)

  WNK Radio (North London)

  1 Londonwide from 1 January 1994).

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many radio stations serve each of the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield.

  Mr. Brooke
  The table lists the number of services which are specifically designed to serve the whole of each named city.
  635

  BBC

  Independent

  National

  Local/Regional

  National

  Local/Regional

  Glasgow

  5

  1

  2

  13

  Edinburgh

  5

  1

  2

  13

  Aberdeen

  5

  1

  2

  12

  Dundee

  5

  1

  2

  12

  Birmingham

  5

  1

  2

  13

  Manchester

  5

  1

  2

  15

  Liverpool

  5

  1

  2

  13

  Sheffield

  5

  1

  2

  2

  1 Includes services which are licensed but not yet on air.

  In addition, there are services which can be heard in part of each city or received from neighbouring areas.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which major British cities have a radio station licensed to serve the entire metropolitan area.

  Mr. Brooke
  Every major British city has at least one licensed local radio service.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on the provision of small community radio stations.

  Mr. Brooke
  Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Radio Authority licenses independent radio stations, including stations to serve small communities. It is for the authority to decide how to carry out its responsibilities.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research and Development
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the distribution of funds between countries and projects in the fourth framework programme for research and development of the European Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The fourth framework programme has not yet been adopted. Statistical information on the distribution of funds will not be available until individual programmes within the overall framework have been implemented and operational for some time.

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for how long published copies of individaul Acts of Parliament are available; and whether he will consider more extensive publication as an initiative under the citizens charter.

  Mr. Davis
  HMSO aims as a minimum to keep all Acts of Parliament in print for at least three years. Thereafter individual acts are normally reprinted, provided there is sufficient demand. Where an Act goes out of print, HMSO can supply photocopies. In addition, HMSO can supply copies of any unrepealed Act in the version appearing in "Statutes in Force."

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Works of Art
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith), representing the House of Commons Commission, what changes have been made to the membership of the Advisory Committee on Works of Art.

  Mr. Beith
  I understand that Madam Speaker has appointed to the Advisory Committee on Works of Art the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Peter Hordern) in place of the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

  Overnight Sleeping Accommodation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), representing the House of Commons Commission, what is his policy on the provision of overnight sleeping accommodation for staff; what is the annual cost of providing overnight sleeping accommodation for staff; and what alternatives have been considered for(a) uses of the allocated sleeping accommodation and (b) arranging overnight staff accommodation in local hotels.

  Mr. Beith
  Overnight sleeping accommodation is provided for essential staff of the House who are required to be on duty at late hours. The only costs arising directly from this provision are those for laundry, which at present cannot readily be separately identified. There is no plan to alter existing arrangements.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will outline the procedures governing the use of public interest immunity certificates.

  The Attorney-General
  Public interest immunity is a rule of evidence developed by the courts which is designed to prevent documents being disclosed in criminal or civil litigation if harm would result to the operation of the public service. It applies equally to all parties to litigation, irrespective of whether production would help or hinder their case. A claim for public interest immunity cannot be waived and in the case of the Crown is usually made by way of ministerial certificate. Such a certificate is not conclusive. Each claim is considered by the court which may, and in a criminal case must, inspect the documents. The court considers first whether the claim is in principle a valid one and, if so, must then go on to consider whether
  637
  the interests of justice in the particular case require that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality be overridden. The decision whether or not to override the public interest in maintaining confidentiality is for the court to make; it is not for the party claiming immunity.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  World Food Programme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the budget of the world food programme in 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The overall turnover of the world food programme in 1993 will be some US$2 billion. This includes both the programme support and administration budget, project spending, contributions in cash to trust funds and contributions in kind, which will provide some 4·5 million tonnes of food commodities.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy initiatives he is urging upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to promote the long-term recovery of Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All donors had a full opportunity to express their views on the rehabilitation of Somalia at the humanitarian conference organised by the United Nations in Addis Ababa from 29 November to 1 December. We now await the report from the Secretary-General called for in Security Council resolution 886 of 18 November.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the value of the ODA and EC aid and development programme in Somalia, excluding the area of the former British Somalia, in the current financial year;

  (2) what is the ODA and EC aid and development programme in the former British Somalia—Somaliland—in the current financial year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain's bilateral development programme to Somalia was terminated in 1991, since when there has been residual expenditure only. In November 1993, the EC approved a rehabilitation programme for the whole of Somalia worth about £29 million. The UK share will be £4·7 million.

  Both Britain and the EC have provided substantial amounts of humanitarian assistance to Somalia this year. Since January 1993, Britain has committed more than £9·5 million in bilateral humanitarian assistance to Somalia, of which more than £1 million has so far been allocated to activities in the north-west. The EC has provided £9·2 million in emergency assistance to Somalia, of which the UK share is £1·5 million. EC expenditure by region is not available.

  EC Development Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 6 December,Official Report, column 76, what were the voting figures recorded in the meeting of the European Community's Development Council held on 2 December.
  638
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The resolutions of the Development Council on 2 December were adopted by consensus, as is the normal practice.

PRIME MINISTER

  Former Members
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by ministerial department how many former hon. Members have been appointed to salaried positions in Government bodies since 1979, giving details in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally.

  European Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Council of 10 and 11 December indicating the voting record of each member of state on each item and where no formal votes were taken.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made following the European Council on 13 December. The task of the European Council, as set out in the treaty on European union, is to provide the union with the necessary impetus for its development and to define general political guidelines. It does not vote; its decisions are taken by consensus. Legislative decisions under the treaties are taken by the Council of Ministers.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost of advertising by his office has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Honours Review
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the outcome of the review of honours numbers which he announced in his statement on honours of 4 March,Official Report, columns 453–63.

  The Prime Minister
  The review has been completed, and the outcome has been graciously approved by the Queen. The review considered the number of honours required for my list, the diplomatic service and overseas list and the defence services list, at each half-year for six years, 1994 to 1999 inclusive. As a result of the review, the number of awards available for the recognition of all forms of voluntary service will be increased by about 100 in my list, and by 20 in the diplomatic service and overseas list. The increase will be broadly matched by a reduction in the number of awards to state servants, largely reflecting the reductions in the size of the civil service and of the armed forces.

  Ex-Ministers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will list those who have resigned, retired or been dismissed from ministerial office in the past 10 years and the severance pay in (i) cash and (ii) current prices paid to each one.
  639
  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1993, columns 142-43]: Severance payment shown as having been authorised with effect from 5 May 1992 for the Chairman of Committees, House of Lords and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, House of Lords were not made since both the individuals concerned were disqualified, on grounds of age, under the terms of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will establish a hotline for hon. Members to contact the Child SupportAgency on behalf ofconstituents on similar lines to the hotline for the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 14 December 1993:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for a hotline to be established to enable Members of Parliament to contact the Child Support Agency on behalf of their constituents.
  I am pleased to be able to tell you that I have put arrangements in place, and have written to all Members individually on this and other matters relating to their correspondence with the Agency.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Young People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds received severe hardship payments in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. John McAllion, dated 4 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard to answer questions about relevant operational matters. However, as Mr. Bichard is away on annual leave at the moment, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security. This was about the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have received Severe Hardship Payments in (a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years.
  Regrettably, the information required is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. This is because the statistics kept cover the number of applications, rather than the number of individuals who have claimed. Some customers may have made more than one application.
  However,I have provided figures from the earliestdate available, 1990, in the attached appendix relating to successful applications for Severe Hardship Payments. I should point out that the statistics relate to Benefits Agency Districts and are not routinely collected to show the number of claims specific to a town. The statistics given for Dundee relate to the Benefits Agency's Dundee East and West offices for the period January 1990 unitl March 1991. From the inception of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, the figures quoted are for the Tayside District Office, which also includes the Arbroath and Perth Branch Offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  640

  Successful Severe Hardship Claims

  Numbers

  Dundee

  1990

  75

  1991

  421

  1992

  1,168

  11993

  1,631

  Scotland

  1990

  10,787

  1991

  10,983

  1992

  18,360

  11993

  20,587

  1The figures for 1993 show the position up until the end of October.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds had an automatic right to income support in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. John McAllion, dared 14 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard to answer questions about relevant operational matters. However, as Mr. Bichard is away on annual leave at the moment, I am replying to your Parliamentary uestion to the Secretary of State for Social Security. This was about the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who had an automatic right to Income Support in (a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years.
  The information requested relating to Dundee is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  However, the table below gives data from the Annual Statistical Inquiry for the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland on Income Support. This includes those who areautomatically entitled to Income Support and those paid under the special hardship rules. To obtain separate figures would incur disproportionate cost. The figures quoted show the number of customers at the end of May 1992, the last year for which figures are available, and have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  16 and 17-year-olds in receipt of Income Support in Scotland

  Numbers

  May 1988

  16,000

  May 1989

  2,000

  May 1990

  3,000

  May 1991

  2,000

  May 1992

  4,000

  The figures for the Annual Statistical Inquiry are based on a 1 per cent. sample of Income Support cases at the time of inquiry.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit his Department dealt with last year; and what proportion of those claims were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit received during the 1992 calendar year was about 70,000. The result of these claims is not readily available, but we would normally expect about one quarter to be successful.

  Contributions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consideration he is giving to employees being offered the option of better benefits in return for higher contributions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will consider combining an improved contributory system for those in employment with a participation income for (a) unpaid carers and (b) people active in voluntary work; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will consider abolishing the contributory principle and replace contributory benefits with non-means tested, non-contributory benefits paid out of taxation, to cover unemployment, sickness, maternity and retirement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to do so.

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people on low incomes and below pension age he estimates will be worse off as a result of his announcement in the Budget to retain the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power; and what plans he has to compensate them beyond the automatic increases of benefits in line with inflation.

  Mr. Burt
  The effect of the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel is uncertain since it is difficult to estimate trends in fuel prices and the effect of VAT on consumers expenditure. We have announced details of extra help for people receiving social security benefits. The help above normal uprating will be worth £l·5 billion over three years and more than 15 million people will gain from these measures.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has recently considered the operation of the social fund review process.

  Mr. Scott
  I am pleased to announce that I will be making improvements to the social fund review process from April 1994. These changes will improve the speed and efficiency with which social fund review requests are handled within Benefits Agency district offices.

  Improvements will be achieved through the appointment of specially trained social fund review officers. These expert officers will be responsible for ensuring that social fund review requests are considered as speedily and effectively as possible in district offices. In addition there will be some changes designed to streamline procedures.

  Applicants will, of course, retain the right of an independent review by a social fund inspector.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 642
  1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. Hague
  The executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Social Security, as listed in "Public Bodies 1992," is the Occupational Pensions Board. The gross public spending figures at 1992–93 prices are in the table.

  Gross public spending1

  millions

  £

  1990–91

  2·451

  1991–92

  2·337

  1992–93

  2·695

  1993–94

  2·664

  1994–95

  2·538

  1995–96

  2·542

  1 Figures in millions, using GDP deflator.

  Note: All figures exclude the costs of the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS) which were included in the entry for the OPB in Public Bodies in 1992. OPAS is not an executive non-departmental public body.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  The appointment of the president, regional chairman and other full-time chairmen of the independent tribunal service is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Otherwise, appointments of chairs and members of the boards of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of morale within the Inland Revenue; what redundancies have been made and for what reasons; what is the current backlog in dealing with tax cases and the corresponding figure for the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There has been no general survey of morale recently. Two surveys by the industrial society carried out in 1992 found evidence of low morale in a number of parts of the Inland Revenue.

  In 1992–93 there were 355 voluntary early retirements. In 1993–94 to the end of October there have been 191 voluntary early retirements, and four compulsory redundancies.

  Key indicators of work state in the Inland Revenue are as follows:
  643

  Per cent

  November 1993

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Post dealt with in 28 days

  99·0

  98·0

  1—

  1—

  Employee cases cleared within two years of the end of the relevant tax year large/complex cases

  95·3

  96·9

  90·0

  80·2

  other cases

  98·8

  99·6

  99·0

  98·0

  Assessments on the self-employed made to meet the due date

  297·5

  97·5

  97·5

  98·3

  1 New target in 1992–93.

  2 The programme ends in December. It is currently on course to meet the 97·5 per cent. target.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates of(a) original, (b) gross, (c) disposable and (d) post-tax income, by decile, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest figures on the basis requested are for 1991 and were published in the May 1993 edition of Economic Trends. Estimates for 1993 will be published in due course when the 1993 Family Expenditure Survey is completed and processed.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated(a) mean and (b) median, (i) original, (ii) gross, (iii) disposable and (iv) post-tax income in 1993–94 in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest estimates of original, gross, disposable, and post-tax income, by decile group, are for 1991 and were published in the May 1993 edition of Economic Trends. Estimates for 1992 will be published in the January 1994 edition of Economic Trends.

  The estimates are derived from the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates will be made unemployed in the construction industry following his decision to reduce the annual allocation to the Housing Corporation by more than £300 million; how many planned building projects he estimates will be cancelled; and what plans he has to compensate the construction industry.

  Mr. Portillo
  The construction industry's main requirements are for continuing low interest rates and increasing economic confidence. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget offers decisive action to reduce public sector borrowing. My right hon. and learned Friend has also announced several important new potential projects under the private finance initiative which can provide a boost for construction employment.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates the revenue from the uniform business rate will fall in real terms, following the announcement in November's Budget to maintain the 33 per cent. main rate and 25 per cent. lower rate of corporation tax.
  644
  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no connection between the revenue from the uniform businesss rate and the rates set for corporation tax. Forecasts of cash revenues from the uniform business rate in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are set out in table 6.5 of the 1994–95 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  C. J. How
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on behalf of investors in C. J. How; and if he will make a statement on their prospects for compensation.

  Mr. Nelson
  A number of representations have been received on behalf of investors. C. J. How was never authorised to conduct investment business under the Financial Services Act and investors are not therefore eligible for compensation under the investors compensation scheme. I understand that in certain cases where holdings in unit trusts beneficially owned by investors were improperly redeemed by C. J. How, the unit trust firms have made ex gratia payments to individual clients of C. J. How.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates public sector pay will fall in real terms over the next three years; and how many public sector jobs he estimates will be lost.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the climate of low inflation, it is necessary to change the expectation of pay increases which come automatically every year, regardless of performance. Pay rises have to be earned. This principle has increasingly been adopted in the private sector, and the public sector has to follow suit. We are confident that all areas of the public sector can make the efficiency savings necessary to fund pay settlements.

  The Government do not directly control manpower numbers in substantial parts of the public sector and so cannot give projections. But as in the private sector, in controlling pay costs, the Government cannot rule out job losses. The way to safeguard jobs is to keep wages at affordable levels.

  Income Support
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates the public sector borrowing requirement will fall in 1996–97 as a direct result of his decision to limit the availability of means-tested income support benefit for the unemployed to only six months; and how many people he estimates will be affected.
  645
  Mr. Portillo
  No such decision has been taken.

  Chief Secretary (Visits)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many visits abroad the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his answer, 7 December 1993, c. 133]: I also visited Madrid from 24 to 27 September, where I delivered a speech to the British Hispanic Foundation about growth, competitiveness, unemployment, and United Kingdom attitudes to the EC. The cost to the taxpayer of this visit was £480.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Roads
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of EC structural funds have been used in 1993–94 for capital investment programmes to upgrade roads in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proportion of EC structural funds to be used in 1993–94 to upgrade roads in Northern Ireland is 1·4 per cent.

  Residential Homes:
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have been admitted to each residential home in the area administered by the Armagh and Dungannon unit of management since 1 April.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is set out in the following tables for the period 1 April to 30 September 1993, the latest date for which figures are available. The figures do not include those people who have made their own arrangements to enter homes and pay for their care.

  Persons admitted to residential/nursing home care: by home April—September 1993

  Private nursing home

  Permanent resident

  Temporary resident

  Sandown, Dungannon

  2

  Castledillon

  1

  1

  Castle Manor

  1

  Chestnut Lodge

  1

  1

  Copperfields

  2

  Greenpark

  10

  1

  Hockley Lodge

  1

  2

  Hockley Mews

  1

  Manor Court

  3

  6

  The Meadows

  1

  Nightingale

  2

  5

  Sanville

  1

  Bawn Cottage

  4

  6

  Gillbrook

  2

  The Haven

  8

  8

  Harold McAuley

  1

  ToTal

  33

  38

  Private Residential Care Home

  Permanent Resident

  Temporarry Resident

  Corkhill Lodge

  1

  3

  Drumorgan Lodge

  —

  —

  Fairlaws

  —

  1

  646

  Private residential care Home

  Permanent Resident

  Temporary Residet

  Glenview

  —

  4

  Hebron House

  —

  —

  Monique

  —

  1

  Roughan House

  —

  1

  St. McCartan's

  2

  1

  Sunnymeade

  2

  1

  Seaforte

  —

  2

  Christian Disabled Fellowship

  —

  1

  Total

  5

  15

  statutory Residential Home

  Permanent Resident

  Temporary Resident

  Lisanally

  —

  (emergency)1

  Roxborough House

  2

  10

  Total

  2

  11

  Apprentices
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many apprentices entered training in colleges of further education in Northern Ireland in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. J. Crozier to Mr Roger Stott, dated 14 May:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many apprentices entered training in Colleges of Further Education in Northern Ireland in each of the years from 1990 to 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, which is responsible for the training and employment functions of Government in Northern Ireland, I have been asked to reply.
  We have interpreted the word "apprentices" in your question to mean young people attracting skill level funding towards national vocational qualification (NVQ) level 3 in the youth training programme (YTP) who attend further education Colleges (FECs). The table shows the number of YTP trainees attracting skill level funding who were pursuing NVQ level 3 courses together with the total number of YTP trainees in further education colleges for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 (to 31 October 1993).

  YTP trainees pursuing NVQ Level 3 courses and total YTP trainees in FECs

  Year end at 31 March

  Trainees at NVQ Level 3

  Total number of YTP trainees in FECs

  1990–91

  1,009

  4,626

  1991–92

  1,088

  4,685

  1992–93

  1,208

  4,579

  1993–941

  1,174

  4,028

  1 At 31 October 1993.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library the responses to the consultation on the future of the agricultural wages board in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 3 December]: I have no plans to do so but copies will be available in the Library of the Department of Agriculture in Belfast.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Sir John Wheeler
  Data on staff employed as press and publicity officers in 1985 and 1979 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of people currently employed in the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Civil Service as press and publicity officers is 37.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations he envisages will govern the activities of neighbourhood watch patrols; and if he will make it his policy that no pressure should be put on neighbourhood watch groups to institute patrols.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to compensate members of the public for injury and wrongful arrest by members of his proposed extended neighbourhood watch scheme;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that convicted criminals are screened out of his proposed extended neighbourhood watch scheme;

  (3) what plans he has to require members of his proposed extended neighbourhood watch scheme to wear numbered armbands or other means of personal identification.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In England and Wales there are over 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes covering more than 5 million households. These are voluntary organisations run by local residents with the support of the police, and whose activities are geared to dealing with local crime prevention issues. Arrangements for membership is entirely a matter for individual schemes and internal arrangements including dress code and any screening of members is a local decision in consultation with the local police.

  With the sanction of the local police, a number of schemes have chosen to undertake patrolling in their neighbourhood. In recognition of local initiatives and support of this growing trend, my right hon. and learned Friend announced at the neighbourhood watch conference on 4 December that a code of practice would be drawn up in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. There will be no requirement for neighbourhood watch schemes to patrol. The matters which could be covered in the code of practice will include the need for the
  648
  agreement of the local police before schemes undertake patrols, information on what scheme members should do on seeing something suspicious, and the need to stay completely within the law.

  Local Elections
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage of electors voting in local government elections for each county council, metropolitan borough council and London borough council since 1974.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is contained in a number of different publications which are available in the Library. The main ones are:

  1974–79

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Electoral Statistics" series

  1980–87

  Publications by Parliamentary Research Services, Chichester, Sussex

  1988 onwards

  Publications by the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth (formerly Plymouth Polytechnic) in the Local Elections Handbook series

  1990

  London Borough elections data published by the London Research Centre, 81 Black Prince Road, London SE1 7SZ ("London Borough Council Elections, 3 May 1990").

  Chestnut Tree, Wanstead
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of policing the demonstration protesting against the felling of a 250-year-old chestnut tree at George Green, Wanstead, on 7 December.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to reply given to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 14 December at column 531.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and in what manner, the warnings to leave were issued to protesters dwelling in the 250-year-old chestnut tree at George Green, Wanstead, before it was felled.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the warnings were not given by his officers but by the under-sheriff of Greater London.

  Gunshot Wounds
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatalities arose from gunshot wounds recorded in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 in the United Kingdom; and what analysis has been made in his Department of how many such incidents involved assailants suffering from the ingestion of drugs.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information, for England and Wales, which relates to offences currently recorded as homicide where the method of killing was recorded as shooting were as follows:

  Numbers

  1990

  58

  1991

  50

  1992

  52

  649
  No information is available centrally as to whether the assailants were suffering from the ingestion of drugs.

  Figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since

  Home Office funding to Executive, etc. bodies for 1990–91 to 1995–96 expressed in 1992–93 prices

  (£'000)

  Name of body

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Forecast Outturn

  1994–95 plans

  1995–96 Plans

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Not funded by Home Office

  Commission for Racial Equality

  14,919

  14,615

  14,996

  14,577

  14,444

  14,537

  community Development Foundation

  1,010

  995

  1,014

  1,000

  Not decided yet

  Fire Service Examinations Board

  Not funded by Home Office

  Fire Service Research and Training Trust

  Not funded by Home Office

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  2,686

  2,839

  2,957

  2,830

  2,829

  2,883

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Not funded by Home Office

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  Not funded by Home Office

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  3,481

  3,554

  3,744

  3,321

  3,588

  3,560

  Police Complaints Authority

  3,603

  3,569

  3,653

  3,665

  3,533

  3,563

  Police Promotion Examinations Board

  728

  1,267

  1,792

  1,292

  1,071

  1,056

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board1

  131,724

  164,190

  174,271

  171,776

  200,806

  205,437

  1 Tribunal with executive functions. Figures are gross and include contributions from the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  For the following executive non-departmental bodies the Home Secretary is responsible for appointing both the chairman and the board members. These are:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Community Development Foundation

  Gaming Board

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  Fire Services Research and Training Trust

  For the remaining executive non-departmental bodies, the position is as follows:

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar
  The registrar is a Crown appointment.
  There are no members.

  Police Complaints Authority
  The chairman is a Crown appointment.
  Board members are appointed by the Home Secretary.

  Police Promotions Examinations Board
  The chairman is appointed by the Home Secretary.
  Members are nominated by the local authority and staff associations represented on the board.

  Fire Services Examination Board
  The chairman is appointed by the Home Secretary.
  Four members are appointed by the Home Secretary.
  The remaining members are appointed by the local authority and staff associations represented on the board.

  Horserace Betting Levy Board
  The chairman is appointed by the Home Secretary.
  Two independent members are appointed by the Home Secretary.
  The remainder of the board comprises representatives of the racing and betting industries: three British Horseracing Board appointees, the chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board and the chairman of the Bookmakers Committee.
  650
  1990–91, and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1992."

  Mr. Howard
  Payments made, or planned to be made, from the Home Office Vote to the executive etc. bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1992"—adjusted to 1992–93 prices—are set out in the table:

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of advertising by his Department has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Howard
  Figures for advertising expenditure since 1979
  are as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  2,904,671

  1980–81

  1,649,605

  1981–82

  1,834,476

  1982–83

  1,957,304

  1983–84

  2,760,681

  1984–85

  3,262,700

  1985–86

  3,306,391

  1986–87

  5,000,000

  1987–88

  4,700,000

  1988–89

  5,400,000

  1989–90

  5,500,000

  1990–91

  5,728,000

  1991–92

  7,275,940

  1992–93

  7,344,635

  It is not possible to provide an accurate month by month breakdown of advertising expenditure for each of the last 12 months because campaigns are not booked monthly. Total expenditure for the financial year to date is £4,321,048.

  Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 7 December,Official Report, columns 167-68, what was the voting record of each member state on all items agreed and adopted at the

  651
  meeting of the European Community's Home Affairs Council held on 29 to 30 November; and if he will make it his practice automatically to record in future answers all such votes, including where no formal votes have been taken.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All the items agreed by the Interior and Justice Council fell under title VI of the Maastricht treaty and were adopted by unanimity. In future the Government will inform Parliament of all votes published by the Council; for title VI matters, publication of votes requires unanimous agreement. This was not sought by the Presidency on this occasion. If the Interior and Justice Council were to adopt Community legislation under the treaty of Rome, its votes would be published automatically unless a majority of the Council was opposed.

  Embarkation Checks
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the embarkation checks on passengers leaving the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  From 1 February passports will not normally be checked on departure from ferry ports and small airports for EC destinations. At the main airport terminals and on departure elsewhere for destinations outside the EC, the passports of non-EC nationals will continue to be examined; EC nationals will, as now, be expected to present their documents, but the closer examination of a 10 per cent. sample will cease.

  These changes should freqe staff resources for work which contributes more directly to the effectiveness of the immigration control. The immigration officer's power to examine the passport of any departing passenger will however remain, and it will still be possible to mount ad hoc checks where, for example, there is reason to believe that someone of interest to the police in connection with serious crime is likely to leave the country by a particular route. Police powers under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation are unaffected.

  Criminal Cases Review Authority
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards establishing the proposed criminal cases review authority recommended by the Royal Commission on Crimi0nal Justice.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government have decided to establish a Criminal Cases Review Authority to review alleged miscarriages of justice. We have put in hand the etailed preparatory work which will be necessary before any new arrangements can be put in place. We shall be issuing a consultation paper early next year which will set out the issues, put forward our proposals for dealing with them and identify any practical problems which still need to be settled. I am sure that the paper will be of interest to many people and I look forward to receiving their views on what it has to say.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the White Paper setting out more detailed proposals for changing the criminal injuries compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today published the White Paper. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are jointly responsible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme and for the new arrangements.

  The main features of those arrangements are that compensation will no longer be assessed on a basis comparable to common law damages. Instead, payment will be made from a tariff (or scale) of awards for injuries of comparable severity. All eligible applicants with a similar injury will be treated in the same way. This will make the new scheme more straightforward and simpler to administer. It should also be easier for claimants to understand, and they should now have a much better idea when they apply what award they might expect to receive.

  The tariff levels have been set by reference to awards made in the recent past by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The lower limit will remain unchanged at £1,000, and there will be 25 tariff levels ranging from that threshold to £¼ million for the most serious category of injury. The basic rules of eligibility will remain broadly the same as under the present scheme.

  The tariff scheme will be run by a non-departmental public body, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). There will also be a new independent appeals panel to which those dissatisfied with the authority's decision will be able to appeal.

  Our compensation scheme is one of the most generous schemes in the world, and will remain so when the tariff scheme is introduced. We believe the new tariff scheme should enable us to provide a better service to the blameless victims of violent crime.

  Immigration
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will review the workings of the immigration section of his Department to ensure that no racial prejudice is demonstrated against Thai citizens seeking to enter the United Kingdom as legal spouses of a British citizens;

  (2) if he will review the workings of his entry visa system to ensure that United Kingdom citizens who have married a spouse in Thailand are allowed to bring that spouse back to reside in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A Thai citizen who wishes to enter the United Kingdom as the spouse of a British citizen must meet the requirements of the immigration rules in the same way as any other foreign national seeking entry on this basis. I see no need for reviews of the kind that the hon. Member has in mind, but if he has a particular case in mind which has caused concern I shall be glad to enquire into it. Under the immigration rules, officials are required to carry out their duties without regard to race, colour or religion.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has on the use of stolen motor vehicles in the course of other criminal offences in the latest available year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Commissioner on the cost of policing so far incurred in relation to demonstrations against the M11 link road in Wanstead.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 14 December at col.531 concerning the cost of policing the demonstration on 7 December. Information on the total cost of police operations in connection with the M11 link road is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Commissioner as to the reasons for the procedures adopted by police officers in relation to demonstrations against the M11 link road in Wanstead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis that his officers were assisting the under sheriff of Greater London to execute an order of the High Court for possession of the land.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the recommendations of the firearms consultative committee that have been implemented nationally, from each of its annual reports.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Implementation of a considerable number of the Firearms Consultative Committee's (FCC) recommendations will require primary legislation to amend the Firearms Acts. I am unable to say when parliamentary time might be available for legislation on firearms matters. Other recommendations which have already been implemented by means of subordinate legislation or through administrative action are listed. Work is in hand towards the implementation of a number of other recommendations of the committee.

  FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

  Approved Rifle and Pistol Clubs
  The changes to the revised criteria for club approval which the committee recommended were incorporated in the final list of revised approval criteria and have been in place since January 1990.

  Countersignatures
  I understand from the committee's recommendations that no class of person should be automatically excluded from being accepted as a countersignatory to a firearm or shot gun certificate application; that flexibility should be applied in interpretation of the definition of a countersignatory; and that any inconsistency should be reported to chief officers of police have been promulgated to forces by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  654
  Visitor's Permit Scheme
  I understand that police forces are following the committee's recommendations that British visitor's permits should in general be issued for the full twelve months allowed in law and that applications should be supplied in English.

  SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

  European Commission Proposal for a Council Directive on the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons
  The regulations which transposed the directive's provisions into our domestic legislation (Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992—SI 1992 No. 2823) retained the British visitor's permit scheme and also made the issue of European firearms passes a police responsibility.

  Control of Explosives Regulations
  A number of the committee's recommendations were given effect in the final version of the regulations (SI 1991 No. 1531) which it had seen in draft. To minimise bureaucracy the regulations provided for explosives certificates to be issued coterminously with an existing firearm or shot gun certificate. Limits on the quantitites of explosives which can be kept for private use were also increased.

  THIRD ANNUAL REPORT

  Definition of antique weapons and Collecting of firearms
  Revised guidance to police on which weapons should be considered as antiques was issued in November 1992.
  Provision was made in the Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992 allowing the continued private possession by collectors of certain items which are prohibited from general public possession by virtue of the EC Weapons Directive.

  Carrier of Prohibited Weapons
  The Home Office issued an addendum to its guidance to carriers of prohibited weapons covering the carriage of weapons to and from the gun barrel proof houses.

  Leaflet on the Security of Firearms and Shot Guns
  The Home Office published a leaflet on firearm and shot gun security in October 1992.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise police forces to stop the practice of stamping envelopes containing correspondence to firearms and shotgun holders information to the effect that if the envelope is found it should be returned to the firearms unit of the force concerned.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The administration of the firearms licensing system is the responsibility of individual chief officers of police. We have no plans to issue guidance to the police on this subject but the matter has been brought to the attention of the Association of Chief Police Officers for any action which it considers necessary.

  Tracker Security Devices
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which police forces have equipment that enables them to recover stolen vehicles that are fitted with Tracker security devices;

  (2) what his Department is doing to encourage the fitting of Tracker devices to help locate stolen vehicles;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the use of Tracker devices in the recovery of stolen cars (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other countries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All mainland United Kingdom police forces are equipped to pick up signals from Tracker devices.
  While concealed tracking devices can provide a valuable weapon in the fight against vehicle crime, it is not appropriate for the Home Office to endorse or promote individual tracking systems.655
  The Home Office has made no assessment of the operational value of tracking devices. It has, however, carried out a technical assessment of the available equipment on behalf of the police.

  Police Establishment
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the(a) authorised establishment, (b) actual strength and (c) number of vacancies for the police services establishment of the Metropolitan police in each month of 1993;

  (2) what was the authorised establishment of police service officers in England and Wales, in each constabulary including the Metropolitan police, on 1 January;

  (3) if he will list the constabularies in England and Wales which are under strength; and if he will set out in each case the numbers under strength and the percentage under strength in each establishment (a) at 1 January 1993 and (b) for the latest month available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Police Authorities (Budget)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total budget for the police authorities in England and Wales for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr Charles Wardle
  The latest estimates by police authorities indicate total expenditure as £5,797 million in 1992–93 and £6,114 million in 1993–94. No figure for 1994–95 is yet available.

  Election Leaflets
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 627, if he will examine the feasibility of bringing forward amendments to the Representation of the People Acts to outlaw the production of fraudulent election leaflets purporting to come from a rival political party.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no immediate plans to do so. The issue may arise in discussions with the political parties next year and I shall consider any representations which might then be made on this issue.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received calling for a review of the Homicide Act 1957 and the criminal justice system with regard to reforming the definition of provocation to include prolonged domestic violence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received many letters on this subject from parliamentary colleagues and from members of the public.

  The Government's position is set out in our response to the recent Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on Domestic Violence (Cm 2269), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The Government do not accept that the case has been made for a change in the law. In our view,
  656
  the present law on provocation reflects a proper balance between a reluctance on the one hand to exonerate pre-meditated revenge killing and a desire on the other to leave a judgment on the facts of the individual case to the jury. Nevertheless, the law in this area is kept under careful review.

  Deportation
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women who were initially granted entry permits in order to join their husbands have been deported from Britain in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 1 December at column 627.

  Director General of Prison Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current salary paid to Mr. Derek Lewis, the director general of the prison service.

  Mr. Howard
  Mr. Lewis's salary is £125,000 a year. He is also eligible for a performance bonus of up to 35 per cent. of basic salary.

  Prisoner Escape
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances which allowed the escape of a high-security prisoner, from his escort in or in the vicinity of the Bell public house, Pokesdown, Bournemouth on Friday 3 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 Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 15 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the circumstances which allowed the escape of a high security prisoner, from his escort in the vicinity of the Bell public house, Pokesdown, Bournemouth on Friday 3 December.
  Richard James Tyres was granted temporary release from HMP Albany under Rule 6 of the Prison Rules. This provides for prisoners to be released outside the custody or control of a prison officer for any special purpose which will assist them in their transition from prison life to freedom.
  Mr. Tyres was not a high security prisoner; he had been recategorised to category C (low risk) in October 1993 as a result of his behaviour and progress in prison and in consequence was considered a suitable risk for temporary release. He was accompanied, but not escorted, by his personal case officer who had been working closely with Mr. Tyres and the Probation Service to develop realistic resettlement plans for his eventual release.
  The purpose of this release was to attend an interview in Bournemouth with the community drug team. Following the Community Care Act it is now necessary to have a needs assessment completed before the local authority will agree to recommend the funding of a place in a residential drug unit on release.
  Following the interview there was an interval before the afternoon ferry booking. Both the officer and inmate went into a pub where the officer drank orange juice and the prisoner brown ale. No specific instructions had been given about this. Had the prisoner been released, as normal, without an officer accompanying him, it would have been a matter over which we would have had no control.

  657
  On leaving the public house Mr. Tyres ran off. The officer immediately alerted the police who had been informed, in advance, of Mr. Tyres presence in the area.
  Although Mr. Tyres had been sentenced to five years imprisonment in May 1992, he was eligible for release on licence in August 1993, taking into account time spent on remand. His first application was not successful and he was due to be reviewed again in May 1994. If he were to have any realistic chance of success in this review it would be essential for him to demonstrate satisfactory release plans were in place.
  Mr. Tyres was recaptured by the police on 9 December. The governor is conducting a full inquiry into the incident to establish whether there were any weaknesses in the procedures which led to the decision to release Mr. Tyres.

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

  Mr. Howard
  In 1990–91, the Home Secretary's three cars cost £75,700, including £2,700 for maintenance. The current costs given in my reply to the hon. Member's earlier question on 3 December at column 783 included a provision of £25,000 for maintenance which is unlikey to be fully taken up.

  Other Home Office Ministers used four cars supplied by the Government car service. In addition, cars were supplied for the transportation of ministerial despatch boxes. The total cost of these cars in 1990–91 was £191,000. The increased cost since then is attributed to price increases (18 per cent.), an increase in VAT (2·5 per cent.) and an increase in usage of the service (8·5 per cent.).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of talks on future of democracy in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have sought agreement with China on the electoral arrangements for 1994 and 1995 in Hong Kong. But after seventeen Rounds of talks, the pressures of the legislative timetable have obliged the Governor to introduce draft legislation today into the Legislative Council covering the more urgent issues. Our aim was to gain a little more time to continue talks with China on the remaining electoral issues. We remain ready for further talks. Co-operation between Britain and China is the best way of securing a smooth transition for Hong Kong in 1997.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Governor of Hong Kong's proposals to advance democracy in the Crown Colony.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the talks between the United Kingdom and China with regard to the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have sought agreement with China on the electoral arrangements for 1994 and 1995 in Hong 658
  Kong. But after seventeen Rounds of talks, the pressures of the legislative timetable have obliged the Governor to introduce draft legislation today into the Legislative Council covering the more urgent issues. Our aim was to gain a little more time to continue talks with China on the remaining electoral issues. We remain ready for further talks. Co-operaton between Britain and China is the best way of securing a smooth transition for Hong Kong in 1997.

  Angola
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions he will now propose in the UN Security Council against UNITA of Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It would not be sensible to propose additional sanctions against UNITA at a time when the organisation is holding direct talks with the Government.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest situation in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennnox-Boyd
  Fighting in Angola has diminished since UNITA announced a unilateral ceasefire on 20 September, but sporadic fighting continues in some parts of the country. The United Nations Secretary General's special representative, Mr. Beye, has been chairing talks in Lusaka between the Government of Angola and UNITA. The Secretary General is due to report on the outcome to the Security Council on 15 December. We understand that progress has been made in the negotiations, but there are still many issues to be resolved.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current Government policy towards Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have been active in the Security Council, bilaterally with the Angolan Government and UNITA.

  Libya
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in negotations with Libya over the trial of the two Libyan nationals suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Libyan Government are aware of the demands of the United Nations Security Council, and in particular that it must ensure the appearance of those charged with the Lockerbie bombing for trial in the appropriate United Kingdom or United States court and satisfy the French judicial authorities over the bombing of flight UTA 772.

  European Community Enlargement
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the enlargement of the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Good progress has been made during the Belgian Presidency in the negotiations with the
  659
  four EFTA applicants for Community membership, Norway, Sweden, Austria and Finland. But some difficult issues remain to be settled, notably agriculture and regional policy. Decisive progress is needed in the next few months if the target of entry of these four applicants into the Community by 1 January 1995 is to be met.

  Far East (Exports)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts his Department is making to promote British exports to the far east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All FCO posts in the far east have export promotion as a top priority. They seek out export opportunities, advise British companies on the business to be won in their markets, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination, organise visits by ministers and trade missions with the specific object of winning business amongst other tasks. I am happy to say that our exports to China are 90 per cent. up this year, to the Philipines 59 per cent., to Thailand 43 per cent., to South Korea 25 per cent., to Malaysia 51 per cent., to Hong Kong 33 per cent., to Singapore 25 per cent. and to Taiwan 20 per cent.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress on talks to bring the GATT round to a successful conclusion.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave earlier to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan).

  Election Observers
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the likely demand for parliamentary support in observing elections in newly emerging democracies in 1994.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We hope that there will be several elections in emerging democracies in 1994 to which missions of international observers will be invited. The most notable is the election in South Africa, but there will be elections in Ukraine, Moldova and Kazakhstan, and possibly in Mozambique, Malawi, Belarus and the Occupied Territories. The numbers of observers required will depend on how each observer mission is organised. The United Kingdom hopes to send observers as appropriate either bilaterally or through missions organised by the United Nations, Commonwealth or European Union.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take, through the United Nations, to secure the reopening of Tusla airport in central Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is urgently 660
  considering options for re-opening Tuzla airport. Much depends upon the cooperation of the warring parties to ensure the security of relief flights. Progress has been made in talks between UNPROFOR and the local Bosnian authorities, but agreement has yet to be reached with the Bosnian Serb army, whose artillery is within range of the airport.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with his European Community counterparts on efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At their meeting with the parties in Geneva on 29 November, European Union Foreign Ministers stressed the importance of a peace settlement if a humanitarian disaster is to be avoided. The subsequent peace talks made some progress in clarifying positions. The European Council on 10-11 December agreed to urge the parties to continue negotiating, and to maintain pressure on the Serbs to make further territorial concessions on the scale demanded by the Bosnian Government.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the Indian Government regarding human rights violations in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have repeatedly impressed on the Indian Government our concerns about human rights abuses in Kashmir.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to visit Zimbabwe to discuss bilateral relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to President Mugabe about the continued imprisonment in Zimbabwe of Michael Smith, Kevin Woods, Barry Bawden, Philip Conjwayo and Charles Beahan and seek a reprieve of their death sentences on humanitarian grounds.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 10 December, the Zimbabwe Supreme Court commuted the death sentences on Woods, Conjwayo and Smith—a British citizen—to life imprisonment. They had been found guilty of murder. We have no plans to make representations on their behalf, or on behalf of Bawden and Beahan—also a British citizen—who were imprisoned for attempting to rescue the others.

  Councils of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made, following the decisions of the European Councils in Edinburgh 1992 and Brussels 1993, to increase the transparency and accountability of decision-making, including the recording of votes of each member state, at
  661
  meetings of European Community Councils of Ministers at which his Department is represented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Foreign Affairs Council on 6 December agreed that votes on legislative decisions would be published automatically unless a majority of the Council opposed this. This is a more automatic procedure than that agreed on 4 October, and fully consistent with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council last December. Voting details are now published by the Council secretariat after Council meetings. We shall ensure that this information is provided to Parliament.

  Transcaucasus States
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to meet leaders of the Transcaucasus states of the former Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement about developments in that region.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has no current plans to meet leaders of the Transcaucasus although I hope there will be opportunities for meetings in the near future.

  We attach great importance to encouraging peace and stability in the Transcaucasus and fully support the efforts currently being made to resolve disputes by negotiation. We welcome the start of talks between the Abkhaz and the Georgians under United Nations auspices. We also support the CSCE's continuing efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as its contribution to resolution of the political problems in South Ossetia.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help Her Majesty's Government intend to give in the coming year to South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will continue to give South Africa as much moral and practical support as we can. This includes a growing aid programme, which last year totalled over £l1·5 million, with a similar sum as our share of EC aid.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other representatives of the Security Council of the United Nations concerning the upcoming general election in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in close contact with Security Council partners, the Secretary-General, the Secretariat and the United Nations observer mission already in South Africa (UNOMSA)—as we are with our European Union and Commonwealth partners—about international assistance in support of the election process in South Africa.

  India
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government regarding the incidence of abortion of female foetuses and infanticide of new-born females.
  662
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  India acceded to the convention on the rights of the child in December 1992 and is bound by its provisions. The Indian Government also attended the world conference on human rights this year, when the conference called upon states to repeal laws and remove practices which discriminate against and cause harm to the girl child. We are encouraging all states, including India, to implement these measures.

  Northern Ireland
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the involvement of the United States Administration in the peace process in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hurd
  President Clinton has several times expressed his firm support for the efforts of the British and Irish Governments to promote talks on the future of Northern Ireland. I much welcome this.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest policy towards the conflict in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to support the co-chairmen of the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia in their efforts to secure peaceful settlements in Bosnia and Croatia. The European Union Foreign Ministers' meeting with the parties on 29 November has helped to restart negotiations on Bosnia. The European Union is meanwhile committed through the winter to continue and enhance its efforts to provide humanitarian aid. The United Kingdom remains one of the largest donors, having given over £152 million.

  Russia
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's view on the progress of reform in Russia and the impact on United Kingdom policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The largest democratic consultation in the history of Russia took place on 12 December, involving multi-party elections and a referendum on a new constitution. It demonstrates how far democratic reform has progressed in post-Soviet Russia. We welcome the adoption by the Russian people of a constitution which provides for democracy and human rights. This process will further strengthen our bilateral relations.

  Serbia
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he recently had about sanctions in Serbia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sanctions were discussed by European Union Foreign Ministers during their meeting with the parties in Geneva on 29 November, and by European Union Heads of Government at the European Council on 10–11 December.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to assist moves towards democracy in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will continue, with our European partners, to encourage democracy and democratic values in sub-Saharan Africa in political contacts, through our aid programme and, where possible, in providing support for elections.

  Cuba
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the reason for Her Majesty's Government's abstention on the vote at the United Nations calling for the lifting by the United States of America of its financial and trade blockade on Cuba.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  With the majority of European Union member states, we abstained because we believe the United States embargo against Cuba is primarily a bilateral matter for those two governments.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last time that a British Foreign Office Minister visited Sudan; and when he plans to visit Khartoum to stimulate a peace initiative.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The then Foreign Secretary visited Sudan in September 1988. We continue to look closely at all possible ways of helping bring about an end to the civil war in Sudan, and have welcomed the peace initiative of the Kenyan, Ugandan, Ethiopian and Eritrean Presidents. There are no firm plans for a visit to Sudan by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister at present, but we do not rule out this option.

  Korean Peninsula
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest decision of the Security Council of the United Nations concerning the situation on the Korean peninsula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 11 May the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution, SCR 825, calling on North Korea to reconsider its stated intention to withdraw from the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to honour all its obligations under that treaty, including complying with its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Council also decided to remain seized of the matter and to consider further action as necessary.

  United Nations Members
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the member states of the United Nations with populations of fewer than 2·8 million, with their current population and gross national product per head in each case for the latest available year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:664

  Country

  Population '000 (1991)

  GNP per capita US$(1991)

  Andorra

  50

  n/a

  Antigua and Barbuda

  80

  4,770

  Bahamas

  256

  11,720

  Bahrain

  518

  6,910

  Barbados

  258

  6,630

  Belize

  193

  2,050

  Bhutan

  1,467

  180

  Botswana

  1,289

  2,590

  Brunei

  264

  n/a

  Cape Verde

  383

  750

  Comoros

  492

  500

  Congo

  2,351

  1,120

  Cyprus

  708

  8,640

  Djibouti

  441

  n/a

  Dominica

  72

  2,440

  Equatorial Guinea

  426

  330

  Estonia

  1,591

  3,830

  Fiji

  751

  1,830

  Gabon

  1,168

  3,780

  Gambia

  901

  360

  Grenada

  91

  2,180

  Guinea-Bissau

  999

  190

  Guyana

  802

  290

  Iceland

  258

  22,580

  Jamaica

  2,440

  1,380

  Kuwait

  2,212

  n/a

  Latvia

  2,693

  3,410

  Lesotho

  1,816

  580

  Liberia

  2,639

  n/a

  Liechtenstein

  28

  n/a

  Luxembourg

  378

  31,080

  Maldives

  221

  460

  Marshall Islands

  48

  n/a

  Malta

  356

  6,850

  Mauritania

  2,023

  510

  Mauritius

  1,083

  2,420

  Micronesia

  102

  n/a

  Monaco

  28

  n/a

  Mongolia

  2,184

  n/a

  Namibia

  1,834

  1,120

  Oman

  1,618

  n/a

  Panama

  2,460

  2,180

  Qatar

  452

  n/a

  Saint Kitts and Nevis

  39

  3,960

  Saint Lucia

  152

  2,500

  Saint Vincent

  108

  1,730

  San Marino

  20

  n/a

  Sao Tomé and Principe

  120

  350

  Seychelles

  69

  5,110

  Solomon Islands

  326

  560

  Suriname

  457

  3,610

  Swaziland

  825

  1,060

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1,249

  3,620

  United Arab Emirates

  1,630

  n/a

  Vanuatu

  156

  1,120

  Western Samoa

  168

  930

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  1·9 million

  1—

  Slovenia

  1·8 million

  1—

  1— No data for 1991, but the per capita GNP of the former Yugoslavia in 1990 US$ 2,940.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made by Foreign Office staff to Somalia in the current year; where they went; and what were the lessons from their visits.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Foreign Office staff from London, the British embassy in Addis Ababa and the British High Commission in Nairobi have made a total of 15 visits to
  665
  Somalia this year. They visited Mogadishu, Kismayo, Baidoa, Hargeisa, Belet Huen, Berbera and Bossasso. The visits were made in order to assess the humanitarian and political situation on the ground.

  Seeds (Intellectual Property Rights)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of the Government, within European Union discussions about the general agreement on tariffs and trade, concerning the potential impact on farmers in Commonwealth countries of proposals made within the GATT negotiations for the enforcement of intellectual property rights over varieties of seeds.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No specific representations have been necessary. The trade-related intellectual

  Statistics are available only from 1 April 1990 (1 April 1991 for Hanslope Park) when the FCO assume responsibility for the payment of utility charges from the Property Services Agency

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  FCO London

  Old Public Offices, Whitehall

  8,899·31

  6,471·83

  7,341·94

  4887·35

  Old Admiralty Building

  2,887·82

  4,916·52

  4,136·92

  41,169·17

  2/3/4 Matthew Parker street

  15,127·87

  17,218·43

  15,677·95

  33,988·42

  Cromwell house, Millbank

  7,865·21

  7,049·86

  5,391·35

  41,997·38

  Clive house, Petty France

  5,148·88

  5,495·93

  3,545·11

  31,576·53

  20 Victoria street

  1—

  8,770·37

  11,425·95

  33,858·84

  8 Cleveland Row

  n/a

  n/a

  808·41

  6198·40

  1 Carlton Gardens

  2,929·87

  7,960·15

  7,105·69

  61,720·70

  Buckinghamshire

  Hanslope Park complex

  n/a

  73,262·37

  2116,438·04

  431,332·58

  ODA

  London

  94 Victoria street

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  East Kilbride

  Abercrombie house

  14,515·00

  18,979·00

  18,863·00

  47,899·00

  1Not occupied by FCO in 1990–91.

  2Includes accounts for part of 1991–92 paid in following year and not readily identifiable.

  3Cost of utilities included in common service charges and not readily identifiable.

  4November.

  5October.

  6September.

WALES

  Sheep Quota Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions officers from the agricultural section of his Department have met Mr. or Mrs. G. E. Lockett of Ty Loch, Betws Garnon, Caernarfon, to discuss the difficulties facing them because of the rules of the new sheep quota scheme; and if he will find a method to alleviate their difficulties.

  Mr. Redwood
  One meeting and six telephone calls have taken place. Mr. and Mrs. Lockett should by now have received a letter from the divisional office explaining that, as first-time claimants in 1992, they are eligible to apply for quota from "the pool".

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what date the national reserve will be made available and distributed to sheep farmers who have been so far denied a quota under the new scheme.
  666
  property agreement (TRIPs) in the GATT Uruguay round is a good one. It aims to establish minimum property rights for new products, including new varieties of plants. It is compatible with, and complementary to, the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants (UPOV convention).

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by location, the annual heating fuel bills for each of his Department's offices for the last four years, and for this year to date.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Redwood
  The statutory instrument giving details of the national reserve for sheep quota came into force on 7 December. The deadline for receipt of applications for categories 1 and 2 is 7 January 1994. Quota allocations will then be made as soon as possible. Applications to the remaining categories of the 1993 sheep quota national reserve will be invited after we have dealt with categories 1 and 2.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 179, what is the exact number of representations he has received on the question of the operation of the siphon in the context of sheep quota where it applies to changes in existing partnerships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received representations from 10 Members of Parliament and both farming unions in Wales. My officials have also received inquiries from a number of individuals and other interested organisations.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now take immediate and urgent steps to reverse the cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowance payments and restore these to their original value.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the reduction in farm incomes in Wales resulting from the recent reductions in hill livestock compensatory allowance payments; and what is his estimate of the maximum likely loss of income to any individual farming unit.

  Mr. Redwood
  Based on expected eligible livestock numbers it is estimated that total payments of hill livestock compensatory allowances to Welsh producers under the 1994 scheme will be £5·5 million lower than under the 1993 scheme. Figures are not available for the maximum reduction in payment to any individual farming unit. The reduced 1994 payments should be seen in the context of rising overall farm incomes in the less-favoured areas and an overall increase in subsidy resulting from changes in other agricultural support.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the average waiting time between application and completion of work involving mandatory home improvement grants for the whole of Wales, and for each district council in Wales.

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

  School Inspections
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the financing of school inspections; what amount will be lost to each education authority's inspection and advisory services; and whether each education authority will receive a rebate if the actual cost of inspections is less than the estimate made at the start of the financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for school inspections rests with the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales. Resources have been transferred from local to central Government for this purpose at the all-Wales level and in consultation with the Assembly of Welsh Counties. They amount to £0·933 million, £3·283 million and £4·651 in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 respectively. The overall transfer sum remains appropriate and there is no question of it being revisited.

  Arable Aid and Payments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by how much payments to Welsh arable farmers will be increased under the arable aid payments scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am consulting the industry about the regionalisation proposals I announced on 29 October. Payment levels will depend on the terms of the final plan 668
  for the 1993–94 planting year which I shall announce as soon as possible after 17 December, which is the closing date for comments on my proposals.

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the number of applications received by each district council in Wales for home renovation grants, together with the percentage of these applications as a proportion of the total number of houses in each district, and the total number of such applications received for Wales as a whole.

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

  Student Grants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the proposed 10 per cent. reduction in student grants.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has received two letters on this subject.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the timing of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received several representations and hope to make an announcement soon about the timetable for extending competitive tendering in Wales.

  District Council Elections
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that no elections will be held during 1994 in those Welsh district councils which retain elections by thirds.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The elections due in May 1994 will go ahead.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether, following publication of the new five-year programme, badger culling will now cease in Wales;

  (2) if there will be a suspension of badger culling following the announcement of the revised procedure.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the Government's revised approach regarding badgers and tuberculosis on 8 December. This gave details of the action programme which it has been decided to set in place, which includes a trial of a new badger control strategy to run for at least five years based on the application of the test for tuberculosis in the live badger in areas of the south-west of England. In areas outside those proposed for the trial the existing arrangements will continue, which will mean that no action will be taken against badgers on any farm in those areas where there has been a tuberculosis breakdown unless it has been specifically sanctioned by a sub-committee of the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will issue guidelines for the listing of the assets of local authorities prior to their transfer to the new unitary councils and the residual authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Draft guidance was issued to local authorities on 31 August 1993.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date Welsh local authorities were advised of the proposed draft electoral wards which will be introduced for the unitary planning authorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is my intention to consult Welsh local authorities on proposed electoral wards soon, taking account of my right hon. Friend's recent announcement that there should be about 1,250 councillors in the proposed unitary authorities.

  Local Government (Powys Model)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he received regarding the proposed Powys model structure of local government; if he will list those organisations making such representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received representations from about 40 organisations and individuals, including the following:

  Council of Welsh Districts

  Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Campaign for Mongomeryshire

  Montgomeryshire Conservative Association

  Powys County Council

  Brecknock Borough Council

  Clwyd County Council

  Gwynedd County Council

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  Ynys Mon Borough Council

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  Cardiff City Council

  Swansea City Council

  Meirionnydd Campaign Committee

  Carreghofa Community Council

  Arfon Borough Council

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Responsibility for appointing(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Welsh Office rests with the Secretary of State for Wales, with the exception of the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments whose appointments are made under royal warrant. My ministerial colleagues and senior officials assist in interviewing and selecting suitable candidates.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council tax appeals have been received in Wales.
  670
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 30 November 53,623 proposals for the alteration of the valuation list had been received by the Valuation Office Agency. This represents 4·4 per cent. of all dwellings in the valuation lists. Of these 10,600 had already been settled. The Welsh Office is considering the arrangements for dealing with outstanding appeals with the agency and representatives of the valuation tribunal service.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the appointments made by him are held by women.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  An updated list of appointments at 1 December 1993 has been placed in the Library of the House. Women hold 200—25 per cent.—appointments out of a total of 784; there are 14 vacancies.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library tables showing in respect of each local education authority the number of school pupils of primary and secondary age who are resident within the local education authority area but who are educated in maintained schools outside the local education authority area, and the numbers of pupils educated in maintained schools within the local education authority area who are resident outside the area with the resident and receivintg local education authority area specified in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested will be placed in the Library, together with an explanatory guide. The data are provisional and based on the position at January 1993.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the current average salaries for primary school head teachers, secondary school head teachers, primary school teachers and secondary school teachers.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The new earnings survey recorded the average salary of all primary school teachers, including head teachers, in Great Britain at 1 April 1993 as £19,760 and of all secondary school teachers, including head teachers, as £21,663. The average salary of a primary school head teacher is estimated as £26,316 and a secondary school head teacher as £35,891.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the Department's funding for these bodies, in 1992–93 prices, are shown in the table. Planning allocations for 1995–96 will be announced as soon as possible.
  671

  £'000s

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 current Estimates Provision

  1994–95 Plans

  Business and Technology Education Council

  Self funding. Became wholly independent and cased to be NDPB sponsored by DFE 1 October 1993

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  3,336

  3,632

  3,848

  3,955

  3,896

  Merged with British Council 1 December 1993: FCO now sponsor but DFE pays grant

  Council for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  591

  677

  949

  782

  775

  Council for National Academic Awards

  Self-funding. Wound up 31 March 1993

  —

  —

  Education Assets Board

  609

  519

  858

  2,609

  2,516

  Further Education Unit

  4,274

  3,249

  3,545

  Funding responsibility transferred to Further Education Funding Council 1 April 1993

  National Council for Educational Technology

  5,145

  5,151

  5,658

  4,790

  4,563

  National Curriculum Council

  8,104

  7,994

  8,135

  2,954

  —

  Wound up 30 September 1993

  National Youth Agency

  Established

  1,911

  1,495

  1,304

  1,298

  1 Apri 1991

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

  1,219,255

  1,031,285

  1,034,601

  Wound up 31 March 1993

  School Examinations and Assessment Council

  8,535

  10,936

  12,383

  4,010

  —

  Wound up 30 September 1993

  Teaching as a Career Unit

  1,642

  1,456

  1,407

  1,145

  1,112

  Universities Funding Council

  2,027,988

  1,850,557

  1,806,426

  Wound up 31 March 1993

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards of governors of higher education corporations.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Secretary of State makes the initial appointments of members of boards of governors of higher education corporations. Subsequent appointments are for the boards themselves to determine. In certain circumstances the appointment of independent members may be made by the existing independent members of the board. Chairs of boards, in relation to either initial or subsequent appointments, are appointed by the boards of governors from among their members.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards of governors for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Chairmen of self-governing (grant-maintained) schools are elected by the governing body as a whole at the first meeting of every school year. Every governing body must include parent governors, teacher governors, the head teacher and either first governors (in the case of former county schools) or foundation governors (in the case of former voluntary schools).

  Parent and teacher governors are elected respectively by parents of registered pupils at, and teachers employed by, the school. First governors are appointed by the governing body, while foundation governors continue to be appointed by those so entitled when the school had voluntary status.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information required is as follows:

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges
  672

  Chairman and members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education.

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching
  Chairman and 10 members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education.
  One member appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Education Assets Board
  Chairman and members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education.
  (Appointment to the post of chief executive will in future be made by the board subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Education.)

  Further Education Funding Council for England
  Chairman and members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education after consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Higher Education Funding Council, England
  Chairman and members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education.

  National Council for Educational Technology
  Twelve appointments made by the Secretary of State for Education.
  One appointment made by the Secretary of State for Wales.
  One appointment made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  One appointment made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  National Youth Agency Management Committee
  Chairman and members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education.

  Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Chairman and members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education.

  Teaching as a Career Unit Board
  Director and members appointed by the Secretary of State for Education.
  673
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards of governors of further education corporations.

  Mr. Boswell
  The members of each further education corporation are responsible for appointing a chairman from among their number. Initial appointments were made by virtue of the instruments of government in the case of FE corporations to conduct former FE colleges and by the Secretary of State in the case of corporations to conduct former sixth form colleges. New or additional members are normally appointed by the corporation.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards of governors of city technology colleges.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  City technology colleges are charitable companies and under the model scheme of government the members of the companies are responsible for appointing the chairs and members of the boards of governors.

  Student Loans
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education from which European Community countries students enrolled in United Kingdom universities qualify for the students loans schemes.

  Mr. Boswell
  European Community students may be eligible for a student loan if they have been ordinarily resident in the British islands for three years before the start of their course; or are refugees; or have established migrant worker status.

  Student Grants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received indicating that students falsely claim elements of grant for living

  Fuel heating costs for DFE in financial years and by location

  £000s

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Sanctuary Buildings, SW12 (occupied December 1991)

  —

  —

  19·1

  30·4

  16·7

  Elizabeth House, SE1 (vacated March 1993)

  38·7

  60·1

  36·0

  30·5

  —

  Lading House, WC2

  2·3

  2·2

  2·5

  3·0

  2·0

  Canons Park, Middlesex (minimal occupation from April 1992)

  8·0

  9·5

  10·4

  —

  —

  Orange Street, WC22 (vacated 1992–93)

  3·3

  2·5

  2·0

  —

  —

  Mowden Hall, Darlington

  11·3

  18·8

  18·6

  23·0

  7·4

  Vincent House, Darlington (occupied December 1991)

  —

  —

  0·3

  2·4

  4·5

  Corporation House, Darlington (occupied April 1990)

  —

  6·0

  5·2

  5·7

  1·0

  Enterprise House, Darlington

  0·6

  1·3

  1·2

  1·1

  0·2

  Stead House, Darlington (occupied 1992)

  —

  —

  Space taken within Inland Revenue building

  HMI local offices (transferred to OFSTED April 1992)

  18·6

  15·6

  24·4

  —

  —

  1Data covers main gas and oil heating only except for Lading House which is electrically heated.

  2Electricity consumption by air-conditioning systems (where installed) cannot be separated from consumption on other plant, equipment and lighting and is therefore not included.

  674
  away from home; what estimates he has of the amounts of money involved; and if he will make a statement on the measures he has in place to check this fraud.

  Mr. Boswell
  Mandatory awards are paid by local education authorities. The responsibility for ensuring that adequate controls and systems are in place, and operate satisfactorily, rests with them. Authorities receive grant from my right hon. Friend on their lawful expenditure on mandatory awards, and their annual certificates of expenditure must be endorsed by independent auditors. My right hon. Friend has received no representations of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the system of funding for all primary and secondary schools to take account of their age and structural condition.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Stratford School
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how Mr. Mark Prisk became a governor of Stratford school; who nominated him; what are his local qualifications; when he was made a governor; and when he became chairman of the governors.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All questions concerning the appointment of individual governors at Stratford school are a matter for the governing body.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by location the annual fuel heating bills for each of his Department's offices for the last four years, and for this year to date.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is set out in the table:

  Teachers (Citizenship)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority the number of teachers employed who are not EU citizens; and if he will set out their nationality, qualifications and type of post occupied.
  675
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Theological Colleges
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what public funding is made available for theological colleges in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Fees are payable under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations for eligible students holding mandatory awards attending designated courses at theological colleges. Fees are paid at varying rates for students at colleges which are part of publicly funded universities. Designated courses at other theological colleges attract fees of £715 per student.

  Final Examinations (Deferment)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what means of publicly funded support are available to students who defer final examinations due to illness or personal circumstances.

  Mr. Boswell
  The financial support available to students who defer final examinations will depend on the arrangements made by individual institutions for students to take their examinations.

  When the student holds a mandatory award and is absent from the course for a short period the local authority which bestowed the award has power to continue to make such payments of the award as they consider appropriate. If the student has to repeat some or all of the final year of the course he may receive payments of the award, at the discretion of the LEA, and a student loan, depending on the amount of time he is in attendance at the institution; and he can apply for help from the access funds. After 28 weeks of certified sickness a student may claim income support and housing benefit.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional support he intends to allocate to Devon county council and schools in Braunton to cope with the funding implications of the Government's announcement that it proposes to run RAF Chivenor down to a care maintenance regime.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government set the framework for the distribution of resources through the standard spending assessment (SSA) system in a way which takes account of the number of pupils for whom local authorities are financially responsible. Allowing for local authority changes of function, the underlying increase in Devon's provisional education SSA for 1994–95 is 3·3 per cent. —a higher than average increase. Devon county council is responsible for determining its spending priorities and for allocating resources to schools through its scheme of local management. It will be free to take account of changes at RAF Chivenor.

  Expenditure
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each local authority for the last five years(a) the education component per pupil of the
  676
  standard spending assessment, (b) net institutional expenditure per pupil and (c) the relationship of one figure to the other expressed as a percentage.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Price Marking Order
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current status of the Price Marking (Bargain Offers) Order.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Price Marking (Bargain Offers) Orders 1979 was revoked in 1989. Its provisions were replaced by the provisions of part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which make it an offence to give a misleading price indication by any means, and the code of practice for traders on price indications issued under section 25 of that Act.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will immediately refer for examination by the Office of Fair Trading the methods employed by the Milk Marketing Board in seeking to establish Milk Marque as its private monopolistic successor.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Office of Fair Trading has been consulted on the reorganisation scheme which the Milk Marketing Board has submitted to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales. My right hon. Friends have recently completed public consultation on the scheme. They will have regard to whether the scheme takes account of the interests of consumers and producers of milk and to whether the structure of the new arrangements contemplated by the scheme is such as to allow for the development of competition in milk marketing in deciding whether to approve it.

  The wholesale supply of milk is at present excluded from the monopoly reference powers of the Director General of Fair Trading under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, but I propose to make an order withdrawing this exclusion from the date reorganisation takes place. The Director General of Fair Trading will then have a responsibility to monitor developments in the milk market and will be able to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if he deems it appropriate.

  EC Programmes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss with the European Commission what measures should be introduced to replace the integrated operations and RECHAR programmes after 31 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 9 December,Official Report, column 348,

  Vehicle Tracker Devices
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) United Kingdom manufacturers and (b) United Kingdom suppliers of vehicle tracker devices are known to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We know of no United Kingdom manufacturers and only one supplier of this imported device.

  Thorp
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Her Majesty's Government first provided Euratom with a full set of design details of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant to assist in the preparations of safeguards and nuclear materials security arrangements.

  Mr. Eggar
  Such information is supplied to Euratom by the plant operator, BNFL, in confidence. However, a general description of the interaction of BNFL with Euratom on this subject is given in the paper "THORP: The route to a safeguardable plant", presented in May 1993 at the European Safeguards Research and Development Association, 15th annual symposium on safeguards and nuclear materials management held in Rome, Italy.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to Her Majesty's Government for the assistance afforded to Euratom in its design verification of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant and attendant facilities in preparing its nuclear safeguards arrangements for THORP.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of undertaking design verification of the THORP plant was met by the Euratom safeguards directorate and BNFL.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by location the annual heating fuel bills for each of his Department's offices for the last four years, and for this year to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Accounts Services Agency
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is planning to take to retain the Accounts Services Agency in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 December,Official Report, column 493.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the report by Stoy Hayward, "Options for the Insolvency Service".

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am currently considering what further work needs to be done following the Stoy Hayward review and shall announce to the House in due course what the next steps will be, including any plans for making public the contents of Stoy Hayward's report.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the cost of advertising by his Department has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure in each of the last 12 months was as follows:

  £000

  1992

  December

  12

  1993

  January

  14

  February

  31

  March

  781

  April

  15

  May

  8

  June

  4

  July

  11

  August

  155

  September

  28

  October

  11

  November

  3

  For expenditure in earlier years I refer the hon. Member to previous answers:
  To the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 3 December 1993, Official Report, column 765, which contains the details for 1992–93; and to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 2 June 1992, Official Report, column 496-97, which has figures for 1991–92 and references to Official Report answers containing information for the earlier years.

  Brewers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigation his Department has carried out to find out whether the minimum purchasing limit is being implemented by brewers in line with his Department's policy as set out in the Beer Orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Beer Orders require brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs to permit their tenants to purchase a guest beer. Imposition by the brewers of minimum purchase orders for their own beer is not necessarily incompatible with that requirement. The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Beer Orders and anyone who believes they have evidence of a breach of the orders should write to him.

  Business Link Projects
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out for each business link project(a) the amount of public sector money scheduled to be spent in 1993–94 and (b) the amount of private sector funding which has been attracted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has made formal offers of, on average, £984,233 pump-priming grant to three business link companies payable over three years. The level of each offer depends upon the level of assistance the business link needs to help business in its area. Each business link company may also receive public sector funds from other sources such as local authorities or via TECs. The total DTI pump-priming grant to business links
  679
  in the current financial year is expected to be about £2.9 million. Business links are private sector companies. It would therefore be improper for me to disclose financial information on private sector contributions to each business link project.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what external financing limit has been set for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for 1994–95.

  Mr. Eggar
  the UKAEA's external financing limit for 1994–95 will be minus £8·8 million.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 7 December.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council reached agreement on three resolutions. The first of these, on postal services, sets out a framework for future Community measures and major policy goals for liberalisation. It invites the Commission to bring forward proposals defining universal postal services and an appropriate area of reserved services, setting out quality standards and establishing technical standards by July 1994. It stresses the need to make progress on the reform of the terminal dues system and the necessity of a cost-related and quality-related approach, inviting the Commission to report to the Council by 1 March 1994 if further action is necessary.

  The second resolution concerned universal service in the telecommunications sector. This sets out a general approach to the provision of universal service for basic voice telephony. I was successful in negotiating a text which takes account of the Government's view, both of the importance of universal service and that the market would provide this service in the majority of cases. The Council agreed a redrafted text which left to member states, rather than the Commission, the appropriate definition of universal service, but set out general criteria for the application of access charges and other financial support to a universal service provider. These will play an important role in ensuring open and fair competition.

  The Council also agreed a resolution on the introduction
  of satellite personal communication services in the Community. This notes the importance of the planned use of satellites in personal communications and stresses the importance of developing a Community policy. It invites member states to make efforts to develop such a policy and invites the Commission to investigate the significance of satellite personal communications, define an effective policy to improve the competitive position of European space and telecommunication industries and to monitor international developments.

  There were short general debates on transeuropean networks, interchange of data between administrations and the electronic exchange of commercial statistics. It was agreed that a full evaluation of the needs of member states for IDA would be conducted before the issue was brought before the Council again. The Council adopted conclusions on radio frequencies, inviting the Commission to sign a memorandum of understanding with the European Radiocommunications Committee on frequency matters.

  The Commission presented a proposal for a directive on standards for the transmission of television signals and a
  680
  communication on digital video broadcasting. Council conclusions were agreed supporting the initiative of the European project for digital video broadcasting, stressing the importance of common standards and conditional access systems based on standards that ensure fair and open competition.

  No formal votes were taken at the Council.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints the Insolvency Service Agency received about the conduct of independent practitioners during each year since 1990 and so far in 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service Agency does not keep a record specifically relating to complaints about the conduct of insolvency practitioners, but receives a range of correspondence relating to the administration of insolvencies.

  Mr. Peter Joyce, the agency's chief executive, answered letters, some of which contained criticism of practitioners, totalling 26 in 1991, 85 in 1992 and 50 to 31 October 1993.

  In addition, I and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have responded to letters from hon. Members concerning specific insolvencies totalling 399 in 1991, 355 in 1992 and 314 to 31 October 1993. Officials have answered on our behalf 207 letters in 1992 and 147 to 31 October 1993. Information on how many of these letters contained complaints about independent practitioners could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  No central record is kept of complaints about the conduct of insolvency practitioners made direct to official receivers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many investigations the Insolvency Service Agency has conducted into independent practitioners during each year since 1990 and so far in 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service undertakes routine monitoring visits to practitioners to test their compliance with the legislation. Detailed special inspections are carried out where the facts of the case suggest that this is merited. The following figures are on a financial year basis: detailed records were not maintained prior to 1991–92.

  Number

  Monitoring visits:

  1991–92

  31

  1992–93

  147

  1993–94 (to date)

  135

  Special inspections:

  1991–92

  2

  1992–93

  9

  1993–94 (to date)

  5

  Energy Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the EU Energy Council) on 10 December.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC
  681
  Energy Council of 10 December indicating the voting record of each member state on each item and where no formal votes were taken.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]The Council considered several major issues and received reports from the Commission on other matters of interest. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement on a directive harmonising hydrocarbons licensing. This important internal energy market measure will ensure that all member states' licensing procedures for hydrocarbons are transparent, non-discriminatory and competitive. A formal common position should follow at an early date.

  Unanimous political agreement was also reached on the Council's assent for a new Commission decision on coal state aids. This will take effect from 1 January 1994. The decision provides for tighter Community rules for state aid to the coal industry until the expiry of the ECSC treaty in 2002. Formal adoption of the Council's assent will take place at an early date.

  A new stage was reached in the progress of the two directives on liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets. The Commission presented modified proposals, which took account of the recent opinion of the European Parliament and which it had prepared at the invitation of the Energy Council of 30 November 1992.

  The Commission presented a paper on nuclear safety in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Council confirmed the need to give priority to nuclear safety in assistance programmes.

  The Commission outlined its ideas for developing guidelines for a Community energy policy. The Council invited the Commission to continue its work under the next Presidency.

  The Commission reported to the Council on progress on the European energy charter and on its proposals for trans-European energy networks and cohesion. The Council also considered a mid-term review of the Thermie demonstration and dissemination programme and invited the Commission to come forward with a proposal on minimum standards for refrigerators and freezers.

  No formal votes were taken by the Council.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether spent nuclear fuel and its constituent parts imported prior to 1976 for reprocessing at Sellafield, without obligation of return of nuclear materials to the country of origin, is subject to the ownership conditions set out in articles 86 and 197 of the Euratom treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]Article 86 of the Euratom treaty states that special fissile materials shall be the property of the Community and that the Community's right of ownership shall extend to all special fissile materials, as defined in article 197, which are produced or imported by a member state, a person or an undertaking and are subject to Euratom safeguards.

  Equally, article 87 qualifies that right of ownership by providing that member states, persons or undertakings have unlimited right of use and consumption of these materials, subject to the obligations imposed on them by the treaty.

  Article 75 states that the provisions of chapter VIII of the treaty, including articles 86 and 87, shall not apply to
  682
  special fissile materials covered by commitments entered into by a person or undertaking with an international organisation or a national of a third state, where the material is to be processed inside the Community and then returned either to the original organisation or national or to any other consignee likewise outside the Community designated by such organisation or national.

  The question of whether any particular special fissile material, which is introduced into the United Kingdom for processing, is subject to articles 86 and 87, depends therefore on whether it is contemplated by the commercial arrangement in question that the special fissile material will be returned after processing to the original organisation or national outside the Community or any other designated consignee outside the Community.

  Granby Street Post Office, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask for a full report from the Post Office before he sanctions the closure of the Granby street post office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]The decision to close Granby street sub-post office is an operational matter for Post Office Counters Ltd. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is fully aware of the factors which have led to this decision, and he understands that POCL are planning adequate steps to maintain full post office facilities in the vicinity, at larger premises in Lodge lane.

  Aliens
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to obtain a report of the European Parliament Trade and Research Technology Committee's conclusion that the theory that aliens are present in the asteroid belt cannot be ruled out; and what are the implications of this conclusion for public policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]My officials have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers by the European Parliament's Committee on Energy, Research and Technology. It has no implications for public policy.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how approved Konver-funded schemes will be financed after the expiration of the Konver initiative;

  (2) what is his policy towards securing continuing EU support for defence diversification programmes when Konver funding expires; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the period for which Konver funding for approved schemes will last; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]Successful Konver applications will be able to obtain grant for expenditure incurred until May 1995 from the European regional development fund and December 1994 from the European social fund.

  It is too early to say whether there will be a second Konver initiative. Detailed proposals from the European Commission for the future of structural funds Community initiatives are awaited.

SCOTLAND

  Young People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds continued in full-time education in (i) Dundee and (ii) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information for Scotland for the years 1988-92 is set out in the following table. Figures for 1993 are not yet available. Similar figures for Dundee are not available.

  16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education in Scotland, January Age at 30 August of preceding year

  Thousands

  Age 16

  Age 17

  1992

  Full-time education in: schools

  26·6

  13·4

  further education1

  8·5

  13·5

  1991

  Full-time education in: schools

  26·4

  12·7

  further education1

  6·2

  12·4

  1990

  Full-time education in: schools

  26·4

  12·5

  further education1

  5·3

  12·0

  1989

  Full-time education in: schools

  28·3

  13·0

  further education1

  4·6

  11·6

  1988

  Full-time education in: schools2

  45·8

  20·6

  further education1

  3·2

  8·2

  1Non-advanced and advanced further education, teacher training and higher education.

  2 Not on a comparable basis. The destination is recorded in Autumn rather than January and age is recorded as at December rather than as at August. Autumn counts for full-time education would be higher than those recorded in January because they would include pupils who left school at the end of the first term in S5 and students who entered further education but subsequently left the course.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds who entered full-time employment in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Young People's Survey provides, bi-ennially, information relating to the destination of school leavers in April after the academic session of leaving school. The table shows estimates of the number of leavers in full-time employment in the following April after the academic year of leaving secondary stages S4 and S5, which broadly equate to 16 and 17-year-olds respectively. Information is not available for Dundee.

  Secondary school leavers in full-time employment in April after session of leaving school

  Thousands

  Leavers from S41

  Leavers from S52

  1983

  15

  14

  1985

  12

  14

  1987

  9

  11

  1989

  7

  11

  1991

  7

  10

  1Approximately 16-year-olds.

  2 Approximately 17-year-olds.

  Source: Scottish Young People's Survey.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the future administration of European structural funds in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am currently responsible for expenditure under objectives 2 and 5b of the European structural funds financed by the European regional development fund and the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. While my Department also has a co-ordinating role in relation to the Community support frameworks for the areas of Scotland designated under these objectives, the Department of Employment has hitherto administered European social fund expenditure in these areas.

  I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that I should now assume responsibility for European social fund expenditure in Scotland under objectives 1, 2 and 5b of the new regulations. The responsibility for winding up ESF actions under the current programmes for objectives 2 and 5b in Scotland remains with my right hon. Friend, as does responsibility for the administration of Great Britain-wide programmes under objectives 3 and 4.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made towards the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to legal services.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since we announced in November 1992 our intention to further extend CCT we have been in discussion with local authority associations about the details of implementation. We are now in a position to consult more widely and have today issued a consultation paper on the Government's implementation plans. Comments are invited by 18 March on a detailed package of measures which will bring the benefits of CCT to local authority legal services. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the House Library.

  Montrose Bridge
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has of the expected life span of the Montrose new bridge; and what improvements are required for it.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Montrose new bridge is not a trunk road structure and is therefore the responsibility of Tayside regional council which is the local roads authority.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the name and job description of each special ministerial adviser employed in his Department showing any particular outputs for which each adviser is responsible.

  Mr. Lang
  I have two full-time special advisers appointed to my Department—Mr. Gregor Mackay and Mr. Alan Young. As special advisers, both are outwith the normal Departmental hierarchy and are engaged on duties
  685
  laid down by me which include contributing to the preparation of speeches and supporting my ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office as far as time permits.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the political and other advisers employed by his Department; and what remuneration each receives and the previous occupation of each recruited in the last three years.

  Mr. Lang
  I have two full-time special advisers, Mr. Alan Young and Mr. Gregor Mackay. Both were recruited as graduates in December 1990 and February 1992 respectively and subsequently reappointed in May 1992.

  In addition, there are currently two part-time advisers in the Scottish Office. They are Dr. Kenneth Benington and Professor David Tedford who were appointed in August 1988 and October 1992 respectively. They act as advisers to the Scottish Office Industry Department.

  It is not our practice to divulge the remuneration of individual advisers.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are made to ensure that special advisers to Ministers in his Department do not have access to the kind of information, and are not involved in the type of business, that would be likely to create suspicion of impropriety in relation to subsequent employment.

  Mr. Lang
  I have two full-time special advisers employed in my Department. The conditions under which they are employed are fully detailed in their appointment letter and are in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance. That guidance requires that they do not have access to the kind of information and are not involved in the kind of business which would create any suspicion of impropriety in relation to subsequent employment.

  Written Questions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 18 November he has not answered, other than with a holding answer, a parliamentary question for written answer on a named day within 10 days of it being tabled; on what subjects; and what is his normal length of time for replying to hon. Members following a holding answer to their written questions for named days.

  Mr. Lang
  As at 15 December there have been 217 questions tabled for written answer on a named day since 18 November of which 31 did not receive a substantive reply within 10 working days. The questions covered the subjects of the health service, forestry, transport issues and local authority matters. My ministerial colleagues and I ensure that wherever possible all questions receive substantive replies within the timescale set down by the House authorities.

  Cormorants
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications his Department has received in the last 12 months for licences to control cormorant numbers on Scottish fisheries; and how many of these have been approved.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]Details of the number of applications made and 686
  licences issued in the last 12 months by my Department to shoot cormorants in order to prevent serious damage to fisheries are as follows:

  1992 September to December

  1993 February to April

  Cormorants only applications

  6

  8

  Licences granted

  6

  7

  Cormorants and sawbill duck applications

  3

  17

  Licences granted

  0

  14

  Licence information for autumn 1993—September to December—is not yet available.

  Rams
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will continue the supply of rams in crofting areas under the livestock improvement schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]In August my Department invited applications from crofting townships for the supply of rams for 1993–94. Some 1,460 rams have since been supplied to over 200 townships.

  My Department is currently reviewing all the livestock improvement schemes for crofters following a consultation exercise undertaken earlier this year. I hope to announce a decision soon on the future operation of these schemes.

  Mr. Laurence Peterken
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the officials present at a meeting held on or between 20 and 23 August to consider the terms of the reply received from Her Majesty's Treasury to a letter sent on 6 August by the acting chief executive of the health service in Scotland regarding the former general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board, Mr. Laurence Peterken.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]No such meeting took place on or between 20 and 23 August. However, there was a meeting on 30 August involving officials of the Scottish Office NHS Management Executive, Finance Group and Solicitor's Office.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent on 6 August by the acting chief executive of the health service in Scotland to the Treasury regarding the former general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board, Mr. Laurence Peterken.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]No. The document concerned relates to the private affairs of an individual and it is long-established Government policy not to disclose such documents.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 180, on what date his views were sought on the appointment of Mr. Laurence Peterken to the post of special projects director with the national health service management executive.
  687
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]On 5 November 1993.

  Health Boards (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to review the procedures whereby he is informed of representations made to Her Majesty's Treasury by senior officials in his Department in respect of proposed expenditure by health boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]Yes. As my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State indicated to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, this is already happening.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  I am responsible for making all the appointments to the following bodies:

  Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland

  Crofters Commission

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  National Galleries of Scotland National Museums of Scotland

  National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting in

  Scotland

  New Town Development Corporations (5)

  Red Deer Commission Royal Botanic Garden

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Examination Board

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Hospital Endowment Research Trust

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Scottish Sports Council

  Scottish Tourist Board

  The responsibility, other than my own, for making appointments to the remaining executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department is shown below; the number of members I appoint and whether or not I appoint the chair is shown in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", the 1993 edition of which will be available shortly.

  Appointing responsibility other than the Secretary of State
  Animal Diseases Research Association
  In accordance with the rules of the Association which is a specially authorised Friendly Society.
  Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee By the Committee itself.
  General Teaching Council for Scotland
  Elected members and members appointed by COSLA, Directors of Education in Scotland, Scottish universities, governing bodies of institutions in the higher education sector (other than universities) which are not relevant institutions (ie., colleges of education), the Education Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Scottish hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
  Hannah Research Institute
  Glasgow University, Scottish Agricultural College and the Board itself.
  688
  National Library of Scotland
  The Crown on the recommendation of the Scottish Universities, CSLL, COSLA.
  Police (Scotland) Examination Board ACPOS, ASPS, SPF.
  River Purification Boards (7)
  50 per cent. of membership appointed by Local Authorities.
  Rowett Research Institute
  Aberdeen University, NFU(S), Scottish Agricultural College, the Royal Society or similar learned institution, the CBI or similar society.
  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland
  The Crown on my sole recommendation.
  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board NFU(S), TGWU.
  Scottish Community Education Council The Board.
  Scottish Council for Educational Technology COSLA.
  Scottish Film Council
  By co-option by the Board.
  Scottish Vocational Education Council
  COSLA, the Board.

  Forestry
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make it his policy to inform the public when a definitive date is known for the submission of the report of the interdepartmental forestry review group to Ministers;

  (2) what parliamentary procedure he will adopt to enact the conclusions of the interdepartmental forestry review group once they have been presented to Ministers.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Once the forestry review group has submitted its confidential advice, early next year, Ministers will require some time to consider it and decide what action, if any, should be taken.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for public and parliamentary consultation on the final report by the forestry review group before a decision is taken by Ministers.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]I expect to receive the review group's report in the new year. This report will remain confidential to Ministers. There will be full consultation of the general public and interested bodies on the options preferred by Ministers before matters are taken forward. The form and timing of consultation will depend on the advice which the review group offers Ministers and what conclusions Ministers draw from that advice.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific access agreements have been negotiated in respect of areas of Forestry Commission land in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]The arrangements for securing continued access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission, by means of
  689
  agreements entered into between the Commission and local authorities before their sale, were introduced in October 1991. The Commission has since concluded access agreements with local authorities for the following woodlands:

  County/Region and Woodland

  Area (hectares)

  England

  North Yorkshire

  Gateforth East

  28

  Hazelwood

  107

  Moreby Wood

  33

  Sutton Wood

  33

  Scotland

  Grampian

  White Cow

  444

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Nant y Ffrith (lot 2)

  52

  Nant y Ffrith (lot 3)

  24

  Dyfed

  Allt y Gwydre

  14

  Court Wood

  19

  Factory Wood

  3

  Penfarch

  24

  Taldrum Wood

  5

  Tan y Lan

  32

  Ty'r Dopa

  14

  Gwent

  Coed y Nant

  8

  Graig Syddi

  28

  Powys

  Tir y Gof

  47

  West Glamorgan

  Dewy Wood

  15

  Nantystalwyn

  44

  Negotiations are still taking place in a number of other cases.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of the continuation of the right to roam on publicly owned forestry land in the Clydebank and Milngavie constituency.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]Our policy is to allow the public "freedom to roam" on all forestry land managed by the Forestry Commission, subject only to considerations of safety, conservation and any legal constraints. We have no plans to change that policy.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision regarding freedom to roam has been attached to the offer for sale of public woodland between Glasgow and Loch Lomond; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the proposed sale of Forestry Commission woodlands in the Kilpatrick hills which have been selected for sale as part of the Commission's current disposals programme. Consideration was given to securing continued public access to these woodlands after sale, by means of a prior agreement entered into between the Commission and the 690
  local authority under the arrangements introduced in October 1991. This did not prove possible, however, as the access routes to the woodlands are across land belonging to third parties, none of whom wished to participate in an agreement.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

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

  Mr. Jack
  The cost of providing a car service to the Ministers in this Department was £186,375 in the 1990–91 financial year. Four vehicles were involved.

  Forestry Commission
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list all the woods owned by the Forestry Commission in East Anglia.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 10 December 1993,Official Report, column 432.

  Fishing Fleets
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the size of each of the 11 EC fishing fleets; and what is the percentage difference in size between the United Kingdom and Spanish fleets.

  Mr. Jack
  The following figures on fleet sizes as at 1 January 1992 are derived from member states' MAGP decisions dated 21 December 1992, as amended.

  Number of vessels

  Total gross registered tonnage

  Total engine power (in Kilowatts)

  Belgium

  205

  27,089

  79,816

  Denmark

  2,749

  114,926

  488,278

  France

  7,393

  211,240

  1,189,849

  Germany

  Not given

  78,341

  190,273

  Greece

  21,777

  129,313

  710,062

  Ireland

  Not given

  52,912

  186,054

  Italy

  16,670

  267,471

  1,536,518

  Netherlands

  520

  140,460

  441,953

  Portugal1

  15,920

  187,993

  504,067

  Spain

  20,518

  657,680

  1,978,036

  United Kingdom

  11,411

  214,733

  1,228,922

  1Includes Azores and Madeira.

  The Spanish fleet, which includes vessels fishing in the Mediterranean and those fishing in third country waters and international waters, thus has 80 per cent. more vessels than the United Kingdom fleet.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to introduce a ban on fur factory farms.

  Mr. Soames
  We are seeking the best possible welfare standards for all types of fur farming on a European Community basis.

  Vitamin supplements
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to restrict the sale of vitamin supplements.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans at present to restrict the sale of vitamin supplements.

  EC Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation and monitoring is undertaken of charitable and non-profit making organisations involved in the distribution of produce to eligible recipients under the EC surplus food scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  Intervention Board executive agency officers annually inspect designated organisations' records and up to 30 per cent. of all organisations are visited by MAFF officers to check that produce is being distributed in accordance with the scheme's rules.

  Brucellosis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 25 November,Official Report, columns 120-22, if she will provide the most recent figures she has available giving the total number of cattle testing positive for brucellosis; how many contracted the disease outside the United Kingdom and from which countries; how many were sero-positive before being imported into the United Kingdom and if any of those originate from herds officially declared to be brucellosis free; if the cattle testing sero-positive were subject to tests for the disease within 30 days of their export to this country; if the certification which accompanied each consignment of infected cattle provided an accurate account of the health of each animal in the consignments bound for the United Kingdom; and if the certification was fully compliant with the EC rules in other respects.

  Mr. Soames
  I wish to take this opportunity to correct the information I gave in my reply of 25 November. The number of cattle which had reacted positively to serological tests for brucellosis at the time the answer was given was 29 not 21. There have been no further positive reactions since then.

  As indicated in my earlier reply detailed epidemiological investigations to determine the source of infection are continuing. It is not therefore possible to say if any of the cattle contracted the disease outside the United Kingdom. All the imported animals were accompanied by certification confirming that they originated from officially brucellosis-free herds and had been tested negative for brucellosis within the 30 days prior to export. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the certification, which complied fully with EC rules.

  Ewe Premium Quota
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the countries in the EC which have not used up their full allocation of ewe premium quota and list the number of unused units in each case; and what steps she has taken, or is taking, to raise with the Commission the possibility of transferring the unused units of quota to the United Kingdom.
  692
  Mr. Jack
  Quotas operate for the first time under the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme. Payment details are not yet available for that scheme. I regret it is not possible to provide the information requested. More than one year's figures will be needed before conclusions can be drawn as to the long-term quota position in member states.

  Farm Incomes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of livestock farmers in the less-favoured areas producing(a) a net farm income and (b) cash income of (i) less than zero, (ii) less than £5,000, (iii) £5,000 to less than £10,000, (iv) £10,000 to less than £15,000, (v) £15,000 to less than £20,000 and (vi) £20,000 and over at the latest available date.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest available information, which is in the Library of the House, relating to survey results for 1991–92, is published in table 1·17 of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1991–92". Data for 1992–93 are being analysed and will be published at the end of March 1994 in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1992–93", a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Marine Ecosystem
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she will take to ensure that the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan will take account of the need to protect marine ecosystems and wildlife.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry aims to build on the steps it has already taken to protect the marine esosystem and wildlife, for example by extending the powers of sea fisheries committees to give them a firmer basis for taking account of environmental needs, and by phasing out the dumping of industrial and other wastes at sea. This and other policies of the Ministry will be reflected in the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will consult her ministerial colleagues to make sure that the national sustainable strategy will include a sustainable management system for marine fisheries.

  Mr. Jack
  Marine fisheries is one of the subjects addressed in the United Kingdom national sustainability strategy which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to publish in January 1994.

  Sheep Quotas
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legislation is being proposed to assist producers in applying for an allocation of sheep quotas from the national reserve.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]The legislation governing the national reserve came into force on 7 December. Producers asking for an application form will be sent an accompanying explanatory leaflet that gives detailed guidance about how to fill in the application form. Further explanatory leaflets and notes for guidance will be prepared in due course. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making separate arrangements in Scotland.
  693
  The text of a letter sent to sheep producers in England which provides further guidance is available in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has had concerning the administration and operation of the national reserve of sheep quotas; what plans she has to extend the national reserve; and what information she has in respect of the systems in force in each other European Union country.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]I have received a number of representations on this subject from both organisations and individual producers. The methodology for calculating the size of the national reserves is fixed under Community legislation which also sets out a number of categories of producers who have access to the reserves. The 1993 national reserve of sheep quota comprises some 380,000 units of quota. In addition, some 400,000 units of quota will be available for producers who claimed premium for the first time under the 1992 scheme. The reserves for 1994 and subsequent years will be made up almost entirely of siphoned quota. Each member state is bound by the terms of the Community legislation and is obliged to implement the arrangements accordingly.

  Salmon Prices
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking to ensure that the reference price for salmon to be introduced by the European Commission on 1 January 1994 is realistic.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have been asked to reply.

  Scottish Office officials have submitted detailed information on market prices and production costs to contribute to the Commission's decision on a reference price for salmon. They have met Commission officials to discuss that information in detail and have made representations that the reference price should be significantly higher than the recently imposed minimum import price.

TRANSPORT

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he intends to make for the future organisation of the British Transport police from April 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Transport Police will continue, as a unified public force, to police Britain's rail network, including services to the London Underground and the docklands light railway.

  Police services will be provided to all railway operators, who will be obliged, through licence conditions, to use and pay for all law and order functions that require the use of professional police resources. Current functions include a range of activities in the prevention, investigation and detection of crime on the rail network, including safety, anti-terrorism, crime prevention and detection, public order, protecting public space and supporting the victims of crime.
  694
  Operators will be consulted about the level of resources required, and will have discretion, as now, to use non-BTP resources for ancillary tasks such as the static guarding of premises, supervision of car parks and the escort of high value loads.

  The British Railways Board will remain the employer of the BTP for the time being. We intend to seek parliamentary approval at the earliest opportunity of the necessary legislation for Railtrack to become the employer of the BTP, until such time as Railtrack is privatised, when the BTP committee will become the employer.

  The employer of the BTP will remain responsible for its funding, and will recover costs from other operators by charging. It will be for the employer to ensure that all the appropriate charges are collected.

  While BR remains the employer of the BTP, it will retain the responsibility for appointing the chairman and members of the BTP committee.

  To enable the BR Board to provide services to other users of the police on a repayment basis, we shall lay before Parliament in the spring some amendments to the existing secondary legislation—the British Transport Police Force Scheme (Amendment) Order 1992.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to assist the future development of the British merchant fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government's economic and fiscal policies, which have produced low interest rates, low inflation and low taxation, have benefited industry as a whole, including shipping. However, where I can, I am keen to bring forward additional measures which help the shipping industry.

  Accordingly, following extensive public consultation, new regulations governing the registration of ships in the United Kingdom were made today and will shortly be laid before Parliament in accordance with section 3 of the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993. These regulations represent a considerable simplification and consolidation of the existing mix of primary and secondary legislation which deals with the registration of merchant ships, small ships and fishing vessels, as well as the approval of names. I have no doubt that they will be welcomed by all who have to use them.

  In addition the new regulations will, for the first time, allow bareboat chartered vessels to be brought on to the United Kingdom register for the duration of the charter period. I hope that this flexibility will encourage more British shipowners to fly the Red Ensign.

  It is my intention that these regulations should come into force on 21 March 1994.

  Secondly, I will shortly be consulting on changes to the current merchant navy office nationality rules. Under the new proposal the intention is that there should be no officer nationality requirements for United Kingdom registered ships except for certain "strategic" ships which will still be required to have a British, British Commonwealth, NATO or EC national as master.

  I recognise that in allowing shipowners the option of employing non-United Kingdom officers, appropriate measures will be required to ensure that safety is not compromised. The proposed relaxation will, therefore, be accompanied by a scheme of licensing to ensure that all

  695
  non-United Kingdom officers are not only professionally competent but have a good command of the English language and that masters have an appropriate level of understanding of British maritime law. A licence will be pre-requisite both to initial employment and to continuing employment on board a British flagged ship.

  When these two measures are introduced—which, subject to the consultation, should be no later than spring 1994—the Government will have given effect to all the recommendations of the 1990 joint working party on British shipping.

  This Government have a strong commitment to the training of British seafarers which, we recognise, is of vital importance to the long-term health of the industry and to associated onshore maritime businesses.

  The present Government assistance for training scheme is a very successful form of support for our merchant shipping industry. The scheme, which has its origins in the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act, allows financial support to be given towards the cost of training officers and ratings to the standard of a first certificate of competency for service in merchant ships. Since its inception almost 2,000 cadets have benefited from the scheme at the aggregate cost of £11·6 million.

  But I recognise that it is now appropriate to offer additional help to encourage the introduction of NVQ/SVQ training for those at sea while at the same time creating a pool of British officers with a career structure which will take them from cadet to senior officer level. I have, therefore, decided to extend training support to British junior officers while they are studying for their higher certificates of competency. With on-board assessment it should be possible for trainees to reach class 2 levels of competency within 12-18 months.

  The new scheme will initially be for a trial period of three years. Assistance will take the form of a per capita cash contribution. The £1·5 million which will be made available in the first year will be targeted at helping those cadets who have been through the GAFF scheme and who, therefore, hold a first certificate of competency. Priority will be given to junior officers employed on ships on the British register.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has not only been able to confirm his willingness to continue to support the GAFT scheme but has also been able to commit resources to ensure the successful launch and ongoing assessment of this NVQ/SVQ initiative.

  I believe that this package of measures represents further evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to the United Kingdom merchant fleet.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the allocation of the transport supplementary grant and credit approvals for capital expenditure on local roads and transport in England for 1994–95.

  Mr. MacGregor
  This year we are taking all local expenditure together, in accordance with the new package approach to funding. A total of £1,008 million is to be allocated to local highway authorities and passenger transport authorities in England for capital expenditure on their local transport infrastructure in 1994–95. This consists of £329 million in transport supplementary grant 696
  —TSG—plus £666 million in annual capital guideline— ACG—and supplementary credit approval—SCA, and £13 million in public transport facilities grant. With the help of capital reserves and developer contributions we therefore expect authorities to be able to spend considerably over £1,000 million in total.

  Tables 1, 2 and 3 deal with the roads element of the settlement. Table 1 sets out the national totals for different types of expenditure. Table 2 shows the total amounts of TSG, credit approval and gross approved expenditure for each of the 108 local highway authorities. The Department's regional offices are notifying them today of their allocations.

  The Government resources available for local roads are some 11 per cent. less than in 1993–94, but are comparable with those for 1992–93. I am glad to announce that authorities will be able to make a start on 35 important road schemes. Thirty-one will be accepted for TSG and four will be supported with only credit approvals.

  The new major schemes will, like the 234 others that continue to receive support, relieve communities from the burden of heavy through traffic, and help economic regeneration in towns.

  Road safety remains a high priority. Within the reduced overall total, the level of funding for local safety schemes has been maintained at the record 1993–94 level of £50 million. Local authorities continue to make good use of the funds. The 1994–95 allocation should finance schemes with potential to save over 60 lives and prevent about 750 serious injuries and some 4,000 other casualties in a 12-month period.

  The £137 million accepted expenditure for bridge maintenance—the same level as last year—should allow authorities to keep up the momentum of this vital work. It has not yet been possible to establish a satisfactory way to help British Rail fund their share of the cost of assessing their road bridges. To avoid further delay on this important work it has been decided that in 1994–95 it should be funded from allocations to local highway authorities. Within the unchanged total for bridges, the distribution of allocations for 1994–95 takes account of this extra responsibility.

  This is the first year in which urban transport packages have featured in the local transport settlement. The submission of packages has been optional in this settlement: but from next year packages are expected to become the norm for urban areas. In submitting a package bid, authorities are required to base proposals on a coherent transport strategy which covers all relevant modes of transport.

  The settlement will allow a number of packages to get off to a strong start. Two packages submitted this year for metropolitan areas—the West Midlands and Leeds—have been allocated significant levels of funding. In addition, we are giving substantial support to a number of shire town packages.

  The public transport settlement makes £103·577 million available, in addition to the funds provided for packages, and cover for ERDF. The Government's substantial commitment to the South Yorkshire Supertram continues, and there is continued funding for the Leeds/Bradford electrification. New starts include the next phase of the Robin Hood Line in Nottinghamshire and renewal of the electrical and traction equipment of the Blackpool tramway.

  697

  Table 1

  £ million

  Existing commitments

  391·305

  New major TSG schemes

  46·954

  Maintenance of principal roads

  151·000

  Bridges

  137·000

  Non-grant-aided

  Local safety scheme SCA

  50·000

  Block SCA for minor works

  60·254

  Package SCA

  10·000

  Scheme-specific SCA

  20·675

  IDA

  8·700

  ERDF SCA

  18·600

  TOTAL

  894·488

  Table 2

  Local authority capital expenditure on roads 1994–95

  £million

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Counties

  Avon

  7·320

  10·230

  18·750

  Bedfordshire

  1·910

  3·127

  5·037

  Berkshire

  2·426

  5·699

  10·203

  Buckinghamshire

  0·945

  2·311

  3·256

  Cambridgeshire

  2·244

  4·362

  6·716

  Cheshire

  8·794

  11·433

  21·989

  Cleveland

  4·216

  6·710

  12·702

  Cornwall

  5·036

  6·202

  11·260

  Cumbria

  1·803

  2·946

  4·927

  Derbyshire

  1·811

  3·115

  5·175

  Devon

  4·066

  5·854

  9·920

  Dorset

  2·258

  3·700

  5·958

  Durham

  4·607

  5·921

  11·203

  East Sussex

  3·154

  4·676

  8·260

  Essex

  7·757

  11·561

  19·318

  Gloucestershire

  2·595

  4·542

  8·302

  Hampshire

  10·192

  16·236

  28·264

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·179

  2·328

  3·647

  Hertfordshire

  5·019

  6·984

  12·011

  Humberside

  5·822

  9·749

  17·385

  Isle of Wight

  0·363

  2·619

  2·982

  Kent

  43·616

  48·157

  94·074

  Lancashire

  9·550

  14·368

  26·351

  Leicestershire

  1·257

  4·635

  7·603

  Lincolnshire

  2·611

  4·821

  7·432

  Norfolk

  4·902

  8·256

  14·275

  Northamptonshire

  2·457

  3·678

  6·135

  Northumberland

  3·569

  4·207

  7·776

  North Yorkshire

  4·298

  8·904

  15·614

  Nottinghamshire

  4·326

  6·292

  10·715

  Oxfordshire

  0·000

  3·096

  5·167

  Shropshire

  1·262

  2·940

  4·481

  Somerset

  3·271

  5·615

  10·460

  Staffordshire

  5·861

  8·555

  14·416

  Suffolk

  3·579

  5·758

  9·337

  Surrey

  10·863

  14·282

  26·095

  Warwickshire

  1·611

  2·893

  4·504

  West Sussex

  2·625

  4·043

  7·013

  Wiltshire

  0·705

  2·518

  4·000

  Metropolitan Districts

  Bolton

  1·424

  2·032

  3·694

  Bury

  0·860

  1·406

  2·266

  Manchester

  9·654

  14·013

  24·684

  Oldham

  1·360

  2·881

  5·115

  Rochdale

  0·874

  1·546

  2·420

  698

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Salford

  1·032

  1·917

  2·949

  Stockport

  2·141

  2·606

  4·834

  Tameside

  0·712

  1·214

  1·929

  Trafford

  3·827

  5·857

  11·399

  Wigan

  0·336

  0·904

  1·414

  Knowsley

  3·764

  10·130

  19·498

  Liverpool

  2·572

  3·446

  6·018

  St. Helens

  0·209

  0·513

  0·722

  Sefton

  0·274

  0·848

  1·122

  Wirral

  0·963

  1·980

  3·083

  Barnsley

  2·674

  3·619

  6·667

  Doncaster

  2·437

  3·428

  6·248

  Rotherham

  1·613

  2·606

  4·802

  Sheffield

  5·286

  10·369

  20·146

  Gateshead

  0·000

  0·939

  1·351

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3·442

  4·801

  9·255

  North Tyneside

  0·529

  1·163

  1·692

  South Tyneside

  0·350

  0·880

  1·319

  Sunderland

  0·569

  2·144

  3·733

  Birmingham

  15·749

  18·912

  36·093

  Conventry

  3·835

  7·462

  14·401

  Dudley

  4·408

  5·441

  9·849

  Sandwell

  2·288

  2·792

  5·080

  Solihull

  1·428

  1·773

  3·201

  Walsall

  7·854

  8·742

  17·034

  Wolverhampton

  7·483

  9·790

  18·857

  Bradford

  2·817

  4·230

  7·215

  Calderdale

  1·442

  1·970

  3·412

  Kirklees

  1·857

  5·222

  7·079

  Leeds

  6·981

  10·647

  18·507

  Wakefield

  1·344

  2·077

  3·421

  London Boroughs

  City of London

  0·305

  1·444

  1·749

  Barking and Dagenham

  0·269

  0·863

  1·132

  Barnet

  0·330

  2·272

  2·602

  Bexley

  3·342

  4·322

  8·022

  Brent

  0·829

  1·914

  2·743

  Bromley

  0·556

  1·339

  1·895

  Camden

  1·542

  2·522

  4·064

  Croydon

  1·859

  3·184

  5·045

  Ealing

  0·000

  2·234

  3·269

  Enfield

  1·909

  3·077

  5·507

  Greenwich

  0·948

  1·590

  2·613

  Hackney

  0·648

  2·059

  3·347

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1·457

  4·059

  5·516

  Haringey

  0·718

  2·441

  3·159

  Harrow

  1·760

  4·462

  8·594

  Havering

  0·154

  0·714

  0·868

  Hillingdon

  0·000

  3·223

  5·129

  Hounslow

  2·103

  3·462

  5·599

  Islington

  0·703

  2·424

  3·127

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·061

  0·798

  1·153

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·251

  2·104

  3·505

  Lambeth

  0·501

  1·227

  1·728

  Lewisham

  1·675

  5·553

  9·877

  Merton

  0·000

  1·345

  1·727

  Newham

  4·033

  6·368

  11·174

  Redbridge

  0·546

  1·143

  1·689

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·331

  1·605

  1·936

  Southwark

  1·282

  2·551

  3·842

  Sutton

  0·373

  1·836

  2·318

  Tower Hamlets

  1·927

  3·446

  5·373

  Waltham Forest

  0·455

  1·746

  2·510

  Wandsworth

  2·132

  4·269

  6·401

  Westminster

  1·166

  2·316

  3·709

  Note: Gross approved expenditure exceeds the sum of grant and borrowing approval if an authority holds unused grant from previous years.
  699

  Table 3

  Authority

  Scheme

  New TSG major schemes

  East Sussex

  A22 new route (Dittons to Seaside), Eastbourne

  Kent

  A289 Gillingham northern link

  Kent

  A289 Wainscott northern bypass

  Avon

  Avon ring road stage 2(B4465 Shortwood to A420 Warmley)

  Cornwall

  A390 Probus bypass

  Devon

  A386 Hatherleigh bypass

  Somerset

  A39-A371 Wells relief road

  Wiltshire

  A350 East Knoyle bypass

  Birmingham

  A34-A435 South Brimingham improvements (Phase 1)

  Staffordshire

  A50 Uttoxeter bypass (Phases 1 and 2)

  Cheshire

  A533 Devenham bypass

  Salford

  A5063 Trafford road (The Quays-White City)

  Trafford

  A5063 Trafford road improvement

  Cleveland

  A173-A174 Skelton and Brotton bypass

  Durham

  A691 Witton Gilbert bypass

  Northumberland

  A189 Kitty Brewster bridge duplication

  Doncaster

  A630 Wheatley Hall road dualling

  Leeds

  Leeds city centre loop road (Phase 3)

  Wakefield

  A628 Hemsworth bypass

  Derbyshire

  A6 London road diversion, Derby

  Northamptonshire

  A45-A605 dualling, Higham Ferrers-Stanwick

  Nottinghamshire

  A6096 Awsworth and Cossal bypass

  Nottinghamshire

  A6117 Mansfield eastern outer ring road (Phase 2)

  Bedfordshire

  A507 Arlesey-Stotfold bypass

  Cambridgeshire

  A1123 Needingworth bypass

  Hertfordshire

  A121 Cheshunt link road

  Norfolk

  A143 Brockdish-Needham bypass

  Suffolk

  A143 Rickinghall-Botesdale bypass

  Greenwich

  A206 Woolwich road improvement

  Harrow

  A409 Sheepcote road widening

  Kingston

  A240 north-south corridor improvements, Kingston

  Other schemes (non TSG)

  Essex

  A134 Colchester eastern approaches (stage 1)

  Essex

  B1013 access road to Southend

  Lincolnshire

  A16 Gosberton link to Spalding bypass

  Staffordshire

  A50 Victoria place link, Stoke on Trent

  Table 4

  £million

  West Midlands

  193·579

  Leeds/West Yorkshire PTA

  93·628

  Bournemouth and Poole

  20·5

  Brighton

  0·5

  Exeter

  0·4

  Oxford

  0·8

  Shrewsbury

  0·6

  Staines

  0·3

  Swindon

  0·6

  Winchester

  0·6

  Hull

  0·1

  Canterbury

  0·05

  Ipswich

  0·05

  1 The figures for the West Midlands and Leeds packages include existing commitments to major schemes in the package area.

  2 Figures for shire town packages are in addition to the normal allocations for the relevant shires, as shown in Table 2.

  700

  Table 5

  Local authority capital expenditure on Public transport Metropolitan Districts and Passenger Transport Authorities

  Scheme

  Approved expenditure £ million

  Greater Manchester

  Bury

  bus priority

  0·050

  Manchester

  Victoria Arena—transport aspects

  0·750

  Salford

  bus priority

  0·075

  Stockport

  bus priority

  0·100

  Trafford

  bus priority

  0·150

  PTA

  new signalling centre

  1·000

  other works

  3·400

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  bus priority

  0·330

  Wirral

  bus priority

  0·040

  701

  Scheme

  Approved expenditure £million

  PTA

  New signalling centre

  1·800

  City Challenge-related work

  2·500

  other works

  2·537

  South Yorkshire

  Doncaster

  bus priority

  0·070

  PTA

  South Yorkshire Supertram

  54·712

  other works

  2·500

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  bus priority

  0·075

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  bus priority

  0·003

  PTA

  general works

  2·539

  West Midlands

  package1

  West Yorkshire

  Leeds

  package1

  PTA

  West Yorks electrification

  11·810

  Class 308 refurbishment

  2·030

  other works

  2·500

  County councils

  Avon

  bus priority

  0·230

  Cleveland

  bus priority

  0·825

  Cornwall

  minor projects

  0·085

  Derbyshire

  Ivanhoe rail re-opening

  0·110

  Devon

  bus priority

  0·008

  package1

  Dorset

  package1

  East Sussex

  package1

  Hampshire

  bus priority

  0·080

  package1

  Humberside

  package1

  Kent

  noise measures

  0·600

  bus priority

  0·300

  package1

  Lancashire

  Blackpool Tramway re-cabling

  1·460

  bus priority

  0·420

  Leicestershire

  Ivanhoe rail re-opening

  2·684

  Nottinghamshire

  Robin Hood rail re-opening2

  6·500

  bus priority

  0·225

  Oxfordshire

  bus priority

  0·085

  minor projects

  0·024

  package1

  Shropshire

  bus priority

  0·100

  package1

  Suffolk

  bus priority

  0·850

  package1

  702

  Scheme

  Approved expenditure £million

  Surrey

  package1

  Wiltshire

  package1

  1 See table 4.

  2 Provisional.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has anything to add to the oral ministerial statement of 9 July 1992,Official Report, column 699, that there was no case for an inquiry into the Marchioness disaster since it was clear that all the facts had been established.

  Mr. Norris
  No

  Lorries(Loads)
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a requirement for lorries carrying minerals, stone, sand, grit and excavated materials on public roads to have such loads securely sheeted.

  Mr. Key
  The safety of loads on vehicles used on the roads is controlled by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Regulation 100(2) requires that any load carried by a vehicle be secured, if necessary, by additional restraints so that it is not likely to cause danger or nuisance by moving, falling or blowing off the vehicle. This would cover the sheeting of loads.

  In addition, regulations have recently been introduced under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 specifically to require lorries working in quarries to sheet their loads to prevent dust. While these regulations do not apply on a public road, vehicles will need to be sheeted before entering a quarry and to remain sheeted after loading as far as the exit from the site. Drivers are unlikely to deliberately remove the sheeting once on the road.

  Road Safety Report
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the next road safety report will be published.

  Mr. Key
  We plan to issue a new road safety report in about a year's time.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of advertising by his Department has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of advertising for publicity campaigns by my Department for each year since 1979 is as follows:

  £'000s

  1979–80

  5,840

  1980–81

  5,704

  1981–82

  5,488

  1982–83

  4,648

  703

  £'000s

  1983–84

  6,499

  1984–85

  5,279

  1985–86

  5,788

  1986–87

  5,819

  1987–88

  5,510

  1988–89

  5,709

  1989–90

  6,434

  1990–91

  8,062

  1991–92

  9,522

  1992–93

  9,831

  11993–94

  9,555

  1 estimated

  Cost of advertising for each of last 12 months cannot be readily calculated since advertising campaigns are planned, researched and executed over a period of months with expenditure being incurred over a similar period. Therefore only the total annual cost of campaigns has been given.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce details of his Department's expenditure on trunk roads for 1994–95.

  Mr. Key
  I expect to make an announcement about my plans for national roads early in the new year.

  Klondyker Ships
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure the safety of Klondyker ships in United Kingdom territorial waters but outside the Lerwick harbour boundary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of any ship rests with the flag state.

  As the Klondykers are engaging in a commercial activity they require a licence, in this case from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Section 27 of Merchant Shipping Act 1979 allows the inspection of any such foreign ship in United Kingdom territorial waters. My right hon. Friend has implemented an intensive programme of inspections of Klondyker ships around the Shetland Islands.

  A code of practice for Klondykers is being prepared. This will apply to vessels within United Kingdom territorial limits.

  The Government will take appropriate action where there is a threat to human life or to the environment.

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

  Mr. MacGregor
  The annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91 was £186,000. Five vehicles were involved. These charges did not cover the full cost of the car service and rates have since been raised to reflect this.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the titles, names of contractors and dates of all external research contracts on air safety commissioned by his Department since 1985.

  Mr. Norris
  Following an examination of the Department's records I can inform the hon. Member that the only external safety-related research directly commissioned by the Department are the following:

  1. Impact Modelling Programme commissioned with the University of Cranfield's Impact Centre in 1991, and;

  2. Explosion/Decompression Signature Identification Research Programme, commissioned with the University of Southampton in 1993.

  These are both in support of the Department's air accident investigation branch.

  The responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. As a consequence research aimed at improving safety standards is commissioned by the Authority. Occasionally the Department has contributed funds for specific projects managed by the CAA.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice is given to civil pilots concerning the actions to be taken to maximise safety when entering an area known to be subject to directional flow control for military low flying.

  Mr. Norris
  In the interest of mutual flight safety civilian pilots have been given advice and information on military low flying operations and the directional flow control for military low flying in the following recent publications and circulars:

  1. June 1993—Information Circular AIC 89/1993.

  2. August 1993—The United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication (the United Kingdom Air Pilot) section RAC 5-0-1.1.

  3. August 1993—The Civil Aviation Authority's General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet.

  I have made arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority for the hon. Member to receive copies of the documents mentioned.

  MV Braer
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report of the Donaldson inquiry into the Braer incident at Orkney will be published.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 24 November, column 64.

  Thameslink
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State For Transport what provision has been made in the Government's public spending plans for 1994–95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 for expenditure on improvements to Thameslink including those that British Rail and London Underground have advised will be required for the King's Cross-St. Pancras interchange and the Victoria and Piccadilly lines to be able to cope with commuters using the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Norris
  No provision has been made as yet. We are giving careful consideration to the 29 October report from Union Railways and to the comments which we have received from London Transport.
  705
  It is too early to say what provision might be required.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call off DVLA's review into its local offices until the trail of automated direct registration has been completed; and how the DVLA's review can come to any conclusions before the direct registration trail has been completed.

  Mr. Key
  No. The review will provide the agency with a range of options for the future. Estimates of the effect of automated first registration on local offices have been built into the business case for the project and the consultants carrying out the review will take these into account in framing their proposals.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many roadside checks Touche Ross consultants attended while carrying out the review for DVLA on the work of inquiry officers in London;

  (2) on how many occasions Touche Ross consultants accompanied inquiry officers on duty whilst compiling its report on the work of DVLA inquiry officers in London;

  (3) what were the costs of the recent review of inquiry officers' work in DVLA enforcement offices in Sidcup and Great Marlborough street, London.

  Mr. Key
  Touche Ross has not carried out any investigation into the work of these officers. It has been advising the agency on its overall market testing strategy for 1993–94, of which the LEO inquiry officers are only one element.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of new DVLA stationery bearing the charter mark; and whether DVLA has scrapped all existing non-charter mark stationery.

  Mr. Key
  There is no additional cost. The charter mark logo is being incorporated into new stationery as it is reprinted in the normal course of business with old stocks being used up first.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of producing the DVLA staff magazine "Licence" for the year 1992–93 and for the current financial year to date.

  Mr. Key
  The cost of producing "Licence" for 1992–93 was £40,000. The cost so far for the current financial year is £25,000.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what were the total number and value of returned cheques passed to the DVLA staff magazine Licence for the financial year 1992–93 and for the current financial year to date;

  (2) what were the total number and value of returned cheques passed to DVLA for the financial year 1992–93 and for the current financial year to date.

  Mr. Key
  Since April 1992 Post Office Counters Ltd. has been responsible for recover, but not prosecution, action on cheques accepted by them in payment for vehicle excise licences. The numbers and value are:

  April 1992 to March 1993

  April 1993 to November 1993

  Number

  132,000

  81,000

  Value

  £13 million

  £9 million

  706
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Touche Ross consultants have carried out a review of inquiry officers' work in the DVLA: and whether consultants visited the enforcement offices concerned.

  Mr. Key
  No such review has taken place.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if staff employed by DVLA have been issued with instructions not to answer questions from National Audit Office staff carrying out a study into vehicle excise duty collection-enforcement, unless a manager is present.

  Mr. Key
  The guidance notes issued to DVLA staff are designed to help the NAO to carry out their work as efficiently as possible. To avoid any misunderstandings an account of all NAO interviews will be kept by a designated staff member. All staff interviewed are asked to give honest, factual and considered answers. This arrangement is in accordance with standard procedures and was agreed with the NAO team involved in this study.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the amount of unpaid vehicle excise duty in the United Kingdom for each year from 1987–88;

  (2) if he will estimate for the financial year 1992–93 the amount of unpaid vehicle excise duty in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Key
  The figures for Great Britain with the revenue recovered from fines and penalties are as follows:

  £ million

  Unpaid VED

  Revenue from fines and penalties

  1987–88

  95

  23·6

  1988–89

  100

  25·7

  1989–90

  105

  26

  1990–91

  105

  27·6

  1991–92

  115

  34·4

  1992–93

  130

  37·5

  In addition, in 1992–93 an extra £14 million in revenue was raised through evaders relicensing vehicles as a direct result of enforcement action. Corresponding figures are not available for earlier years.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by vehicle registration office, the number, grades and salary costs of staff employed on vehicle excise duty enforcement and the total amount of revenue collected by those staff in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is as follows:

  Staff In Posts and Salaries 1992–93

  (£000s)

  VRO by Region

  Executive staff

  Clerical staff

  Salary costs

  Scottish

  Aberdeen

  —

  4

  40

  Carlisle

  1

  4

  53

  Dundee

  —

  4

  33

  707

  VRO by Region

  Executive staff

  Clerical staff

  Salary costs

  Edinburgh

  1

  11

  140

  Glasgow

  2

  25

  262

  Inverness

  —

  3

  23

  Middlesborough

  2

  12

  104

  Newcastle

  3

  18

  197

  Total

  852

  North England and North Wales

  Bangor

  2

  7

  86

  Chester

  1

  8

  91

  Huddersfield

  1

  7

  93

  Hull

  2

  7

  95

  Leeds

  4

  20

  234

  Liverpool

  3

  21

  252

  Manchester

  4

  21

  278

  Preston

  2

  14

  135

  Sheffield

  2

  14

  155

  Total

  1,419

  Midlands

  Birmingham

  5

  24

  326

  Coventry

  1

  12

  120

  Dudley

  1

  9

  99

  Leicester

  1

  13

  114

  Lincoln

  2

  10

  130

  Northampton

  1

  11

  148

  Nottingham

  1

  15

  152

  Peterborough

  1

  9

  106

  Shrewsbury

  —

  5

  37

  Stoke

  1

  8

  85

  Total

  1,317

  Southwest England and South Wales

  Bristol

  4

  23

  270

  Cardiff

  4

  20

  205

  Exeter

  4

  17

  179

  Gloucester

  2

  10

  130

  Haverfordwest

  1

  3

  17

  Swansea

  2

  9

  75

  Taunton

  2

  7

  91

  Truro

  2

  5

  100

  Worcester

  2

  8

  110

  Total

  1,177

  London and Eastern

  Chelmsford

  5

  24

  310

  Ipswich

  2

  9

  115

  Luton

  6

  30

  397

  Norwich

  2

  10

  101

  Total

  923

  Southern

  Bournemouth

  3

  12

  163

  Brighton

  4

  24

  274

  Guildford

  3

  14

  179

  Maidstone

  4

  20

  288

  Oxford

  1

  11

  105

  Portsmouth

  3

  15

  177

  Reading

  2

  16

  201

  Swindon

  1

  7

  76

  Total

  1,463

  London Enforcement Office

  37

  207

  3,391

  The total salary costs for 1992–93 was £10.5 million.

  The revenue recovered for 1992–93 was as follows:
  708

  £ million

  Out of court settlements paid

  10·5

  Prosecution

  27

  Total

  37·5

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each no further steps code the number of vehicle excise duty offence reports written off for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  VED offence reports are written off as "no further steps" when enforcement action has had to be discontinued for a specified reason. The figures for 1992–93 were:

  Number

  NFS 1 (unable to trace the offender or prove liability for the offence)

  408,000

  NFS 2 (time expired for court action)

  1,200

  NFS 3 (insufficient staff resource)

  1,200

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle excise duty offence reports(a) were settled out of court or (b) resulted in a prosecution and fines, in 1992–93 and in the current financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The number of VED enforcement cases brought to a successful conclusion in 1992–93 and between April and November 1993 were:

  1992–93 April-March

  1993–94 April-November

  By out of court settlement

  242,000

  157,000

  By prosecution

  193,000

  140,000

  In addition, in 1992–93 180,000 motorists were induced to take out a licence as a direct result of enforcement action. To November this year the figure stands at 137,000.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many vehicle excise offences reports have been generated so far this financial year;

  (2) how many vehicle excise offences reports were received by DVLA in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The number of vehicles reported to DVLA for alleged VED offences in 1992–93 was 1·8 million and 1·2 million for this financial year to November.

  Child Road Deaths
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year since 1979 the number of children below 16 years of age killed as a result of road traffic accidents(a) between 7 am and 10 am and (b) between 2 pm and 6 pm when clocks were set at (i) GMT and (ii) BST.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  The data indicate that:

  (a) there are more child road deaths in the summer than in the winter and that especially in the summer many more deaths occur in the afternoon, when children are out and about more; arid

  (b) very significant progress has been made over this period in reducing child road casualties but more needs to be done.

  709

  Child fatalities, morning and afternoon periods, during BST and GMT1 1979–92

  Clocks set at GMT

  Clocks set at BST

  Year

  Morning (7-10 am)

  Afternoon (2-6 pm)

  Morning (7-10 am)

  Afternoon (2-6 pm)

  1979

  26

  101

  36

  234

  1980

  28

  96

  34

  193

  1981

  25

  105

  56

  197

  1982

  28

  89

  34

  170

  1983

  24

  114

  40

  203

  1984

  23

  92

  33

  194

  1985

  26

  91

  22

  166

  1986

  30

  87

  33

  144

  1987

  20

  66

  43

  154

  1988

  25

  82

  31

  142

  1989

  19

  68

  32

  153

  1990

  18

  54

  29

  139

  1991

  11

  66

  23

  135

  1992

  16

  60

  13

  86

  Total

  319

  1,171

  459

  2,310

  1 Clocks are set at BST for approximately seven months of the year and at GMT for approximately five months.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken to evaluate the performance of catalytic converters in a typical urban driving situation in Britain; and whether the reductions in emissions have been quantified.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has a number of research programmes on vehicles emissions which include analysis of catalyst cars. Recent unpublished work at the Warren Spring Laboratory, has compared the emission performance of catalyst-equipped cars against non-catalyst cars, for an equal mix of hot start and normal ambient cold start operation, over actual urban road driving and over dynamometer driving cycles that simulate typical urban driving. The results show, on average, that a catalyst equipped car reduces carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen by 76 per cent., 81 per cent., and 77 per cent. respectively over an equivalent non-catalyst car over a typical journey length of 4 km. Similar research carried out under the EU Drive programme, but under hot starting conditions only, shows reductions of 77 per cent., 90 per cent. and 85 per cent. respectively for the same pollutants.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been made of the volume of heavy goods vehicle traffic that will transfer from the M6 to the proposed Birmingham northern relief road; and what percentage this is of through and overall HGV traffic.

  Mr. Key
  The BNRR concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd., currently estimates that by the design year of 2011 the HGV traffic on BNRR would be as follows, about 55 per cent.—or approximately 7,000 vehicles per day—of the through trips which otherwise would have used M6 between junctions 4 and 11 are predicted to transfer. These figures represent up to about 20 per cent. of the total HGV traffic along this section of M6.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what authority has been given or licences issued by his Department to Collins Road Services or to CRS to operate or park heavy vehicles on land known as Chaney's,710
  Hubbards farm, West Drayton road, Hillingdon, Middlesex; what consultations have taken place with the London borough of Hillingdon on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]: Decisions on individual operator licences are the responsibility of the traffic commissioners. I have asked the traffic commissioner for the south-eastern and metropolitan traffic area to write to my hon. Friend.

  Trunk Road Assessment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on how far new roads generate traffic will be published; and what were the reasons for delay in publication.

  Mr. Key
  The standing committee on trunk road assessment is still looking into the question of generated traffic and has not yet reported its findings to my Department.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each contract made with NHS trusts by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) regional health authorities for the current year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The readily available information is shown in the table. More detailed information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. A list of contracts made by trusts with regional health authorities is not available centrally.

  Supra-regional services

  Choriocarcinoma
  Weston Park Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield

  Fulminant liver failure
  King's College Hospital NHS Trust, London

  Heart transplantation
  Harefield Hospital NHS Trust (in association with Royal Brompton Hospital)
  Northern General Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield
  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge
  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust, London
  Freeman Hospital NHS Trust, Newcastle
  711
  Liver transplantation
  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds
  King's College Hospital NHS Trust, London
  Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, London
  Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge
  Freeman Hospital NHS Trust, Newcastle

  Neonatal and infant cardiac surgery
  Freeman Hospital NHS Trust, Newcastle
  Guy's Hospital NHS Trust, London
  Harefield Hospital NHS Trust
  Bristol Royal Hospital for Sick Children NHS Trust
  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital NHS Trust (Alder Hey)
  Southampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Paediatric liver services and Complex hepatobiliary surgery
  King's College Hospital NHS Trust, London

  Proton therapy for large uveal melanomas
  Mersey Centre for Radiotherapy and Oncology Clatterbridge
  Hospital NHS Trust, Wirral

  Managed through Centrally Commissioned R&D programme

  Vitamin K a possible risk for childhood cancer (Welsh Office)
  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust, Penarth, Glamorgan

  Nottingham heart attack register
  University Hospital Nottingham NHS Trust

  The patterns of delay in mental health review tribunals
  King's College Hospital NHS Trust, London

  Managed as part of the NHS R and D programme

  Development of a transport incubator support system
  King's Healthcare NHS Trust, (care of King's College Hospital NHS Trust, Denmark Hill site, London)

  Development of a novel pneumatic driver for a paracorporeal ventricular assist device
  Harefield Hospital NHS Trust

  Development of a supra-pubic urine collection system
  Southmead Health Services NHS Trust, Bristol

  Development of a neo-anal system
  The Royal London Hospital NHS Trust

  Poisons Information Services
  Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital NHS Trust, London
  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  High Security Infectious Diseases Unit
  Coppetts Wood Hospital (managed by the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust)

  Minimally Invasive Therapy Project
  Minimally invasive therapy project, United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  EC Health Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each EC country for the latest available year,(a) the life expectancy for men and women and (b) the death rate from (i) asthma, (ii) heart disease, (iii) breast cancer, (iv) lung cancer and (v) suicide, (c) the deaths from road traffic accidents per head of population,

  Table 2: Death rates per 100,000 population for selected causes of death for each EEC country for the latest available year

  Bronchitis, chronic and unspecified emphysema and asthma

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  Malignant neoplasm of breast cancer

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung

  Suicide and self inflicted injury

  Motor vehicle traffic accidents

  (ICD 490-493)

  (ICD 390-459)

  (ICD 174-175)

  (ICD 162)

  (ICD E950-E959)

  (ICD E800-E819

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Belgium

  1987

  39·6

  15·8

  406·4

  451·5

  n/a

  45·5

  119·2

  14·1

  32·0

  13·8

  29·1

  10·6

  Denmark

  1991

  57·6

  40·7

  511·7

  508·6

  0·3

  50·4

  79·4

  45·5

  30·0

  15·1

  16·8

  6·5

  France

  1990

  16·5

  12·8

  287·3

  327·0

  n/a

  34·9

  68·1

  9·7

  29·6

  11·1

  26·5

  9·2

  Germany

  1990

  42·9

  22·4

  503·.8

  657·5

  n/a

  42·7

  71·6

  16·5

  24·9

  10·7

  19·5

  7·6

  Greece

  1990

  4·1

  2·3

  474·6

  498·0

  n/a

  24·8

  81·2

  13·9

  5·5

  1·5

  33·9

  11·0

  Ireland

  1990

  21·5

  13·8

  437·0

  380·2

  n/a

  34·4

  59·7

  27·7

  14·4

  4·7

  19·2

  6·9

  Italy

  1989

  43·6

  19·8

  387·2

  416·9

  n/a

  36·8

  89·9

  14·6

  11·2

  4·1

  24·4

  6·4

  Luxembourg

  1991

  34·2

  15·2

  412·0

  462·2

  n/a

  45·6

  80·6

  15·7

  28·5

  11·7

  31·1

  11·7

  Netherlands

  1990

  30·9

  10·2

  350·3

  340·3

  n/a

  43·5

  94·9

  16·3

  12·3

  7·2

  12·2

  5·1

  Portugal

  1991

  19·8

  10·3

  451·5

  489·1

  n/a

  29·3

  38·5

  8·6

  14·9

  4·6

  47·7

  12·3

  Spain

  1989

  14·3

  7·5

  317·6

  371·1

  n/a

  26·7

  64·8

  6·4

  11·6

  3·9

  32·9

  9·8

  United Kingdom

  1991

  20·2

  12·5

  508·1

  525·4

  n/a

  52·2

  94·5

  42·7

  12·4

  3·6

  12·7

  5·2

  Source: 1992 World Health Statistics Annual.
  712
  (d) the number of under-16 pregnancies per 1,000 population, (e) the number of 11 to 15-year-old boys and girls smoking per 1,000 girls and boys and (f) the number of (1) nurses and (2) midwives per head of population.

  Mr. Sackville
  The life expectancy for men and women in each European Economic Community country for the latest available year is shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows death rates per 100,000 population for various causes of deaths.

  The number of under 16 pregnancies per 1,000 population for each EEC country is not available centrally. This information is collected for England and Wales. For the latest available year, 1991, the pregnancy rate is 9·3 per 1,000 girls in the 13-15 age group. Comparable data are not available for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The number of 11 to 15-year-old boys and girls smoking per 1,000 population is not available centrally. However, a report on the European position on smoking amongst 11 to 15-year-old children in 1990 was published by the European Bureau for Action on Smoking Prevention (BASP). The survey was based on a small sample of only 9,312 young people (4,778 boys and 4,534 girls) representing about 800 young people per country (250 in Luxembourg) and the results are shown in table 3.

  Information on the number of nurses and midwives per head of population for each EEC country is not available centrally.

  Table 1

  The life expectancy for men and women in each EEC country for the latest available year

  Males

  Females

  Belgium

  1987

  72·0

  78·9

  Denmark

  1991

  72·6

  78·2

  France

  1990

  73·4

  81·8

  Germany

  1990

  72·0

  78·6

  Greece

  1990

  74·6

  79·8

  Ireland

  1990

  72·0

  77·7

  Italy

  1989

  73·6

  80·4

  Luxembourg

  1991

  71·8

  79·2

  Netherlands

  1990

  73·9

  80·3

  Portugal

  1991

  69·8

  77·3

  Spain

  1989

  73·4

  80·5

  United Kingdom

  1991

  73·3

  78·3

  Source: 1992 World Health Statistics Annual.
  713

  Table 3

  Regular smokers, occasional smokers and non smokers aged 11-15 by EEC country

  Per Cent.

  Regular Smokers

  Occasional Smokers

  Non Smokers

  Belgium

  5

  2

  93

  Denmark

  6

  2

  92

  France

  6

  2

  92

  Germany

  7

  5

  88

  Greece

  4

  1

  96

  Ireland

  4

  2

  94

  Italy

  3

  1

  96

  Luxembourg

  5

  2

  93

  Netherlands

  6

  2

  92

  Portugal

  5

  2

  93

  Spain

  7

  5

  88

  United Kingdom

  6

  2

  92

  EEC

  6

  3

  91

  Figures may not add to 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  Source: BASP—European Bureau For Action on Smoking Prevention. Survey undertaken 1990.

  Zantac
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the health risks of the colouring matter in the drug Zantac.

  Mr. Sackville
  Zantac is a licensed product. Before any medicinal product may be marketed in the United Kingdom a full assessment of the safety, quality and efficacy is carried out to enable a product licence to be granted by the licensing authority. This assessment also includes consideration of any excipients. All drugs by necessity contain excipients, these are products which must be present for a defined purpose and which must not be of unacceptable toxicity. Colouring agents in medicines are examples of excipients. The colouring in Zantac is one of those permitted by an European Community directive which states that the use of only certain colours in medicinal products is allowed.

  Health Service Gifts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what gifts or hospitality officers or directors of health authorities and trusts may accept; and whether such acceptance is required to be recorded.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality is contained in HSG(93)5, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Staffing
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the national health service for the year 1993 in(a) nursing and midwifery, (b) medical and dental and (c) others, to include professional/technical, ancillary, administration/clerical, maintenance, managers, ambulance, staff and others.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest available information is shown in the table.

  National health service staff groups in England at 30 September 1992 in whole-time equivalents in the hospital and community health service.
  714

  Numbers

  NHS Staff Group

  Nursing and Midwifery

  378,790

  Medical and Dental

  47,220

  Others

  363,980

  Total

  789,990

  Notes:

  1. All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2. Figures exclude general medical and dental practice staff.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Raymond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish a table showing the number of acute beds available in each accident and emergency department in hospitals within the Greater London area in each year since 1989;

  (2) if she will estimate how many acute beds will be available in each accident and emergency department in hospitals in the Greater London area in the first week on January 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Each authority or trust decides the number of beds to be designated as accident and emergency beds in the light of local needs and experience.

  Neurosurgery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what neurosurgical advice is being made available to her on the future location of the regional neurosurgery now carried out at the Brook Hospital;

  (2) if proposals for the future location of the South East Thames regional neurosciences will be based on (a) advice from a professor of psychiatry, (b) advice from the Brook team or (c) others.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received advice from a number of sources, including the South East Thames regional health authority review of regional neurosciences, the neurosciences specialty review and the special health authority research review. All advice will be considered carefully alongside proposals for the development of a neurosciences centre from the Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital Trust, and from King's Healthcare Trust and the Maudsley hospital.

  NHS Trusts (Cars)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the number and average cost of cars made available by trusts in the Greater London area to(a) chief executives, (b) senior managers, (c) doctors, (d) nurses, (e) midwives and (f) other staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Every health authority and national health service trust is required to complete an annual financial return giving details of total expenditure on leased and contract car hire charges. This includes the cost of charges passed on to staff. Detailed information about the number of cars and their allocation is not available centrally.

  Rights of the Child
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what consideration her Department has given to articles 9 and 18.2 of the UN convention on the rights of the child in relation to the costs to parents of visiting children in hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Consistent with articles 9 and 18.2, we attach particular importance in involving parents in the care and treatment of their children. Under the hospital travel costs scheme, financial assistance is available to parents on low incomes to accompany their children to and from hospital where this is medically necessary. Most national health service hospitals also provide accommodation for parents to enable them to stay overnight at the hospital whilst their children receive treatment. Additional financial help is available from the social fund to enable parents in receipt of income support to visit their children in hospital.

  NHS Trusts Budget
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total budget for NHS trusts for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for 1992–93 and 1993–94 is shown in the table. The information for 1994–95 will be available in April 1994 following the submission of trust business plans for that year.

  Total expenditure: NHS trusts1

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  7,416

  1993–94

  213,721

  1 This figure comprises NHS trust income plus external finance.

  2 Forecast outturn.

  NHS Public Bodies
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total budget for NHS public bodies for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  Gross national health service expenditure was £29,413 million in 1992–93. It is forecast to be £30,253 million in 1993–94, and planned to rise to £31,937 in 1994–95.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the report of the Advisory Group on Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes on Nitrogen Dioxide.

  Mr. Sackville
  Oxides of Nitrogen: 3rd report by the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes was published on Monday 13 December. Copies are available in the Library.

  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from charitable donors concerning the loss of the new facilities 716
  to which they contributed at the Royal Marsden hospital since the publication of the special review report on cancer services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the publication of the speciality review report on cancer services in London, we have received 28 such representations, both from organisations and from individuals.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received from the general public in connection with the future of the Royal Marsden hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Up to 14 December we had received representations from 1,450 hon. Members and members of the public and two petitions.

  Hospices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretry of State for Health what assessment she has made of the future demand for hospices in Lancashire and the north-west.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for health authorities to assess the palliative and other health care needs of their resident populations and ensure that appropriate services are provided, within available resources and reflecting national priorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bruce Martin, chairman of North Western regional health authority, for information on assessments made by that authority.

  London Hospitals (Assaults)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital staff have been assaulted by patients or the general public at hospitals in the four regional health authorities that cover the Greater London area during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the individual regional health authorities for details.

  Heart Pacemakers
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents there have been, nationwide, where the cause of death of a patient fitted with Siemens pacemaker lead models 1010T, 1050T and prototype T93 has been related to the pacemaker lead.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to information held by the National Pacemaker Database there are no recorded incidents. This is a correction to the answer I provided in my reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) on 4 November 1993 at column 452.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make improvements to the London ambulance service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the last year the London ambulance service (LAS) has made progress both towards improving its response times and in implementing the recommendations of the inquiry into its performance set up
  717
  last autumn. The management of the service has been re-structured and lines of management accountability strengthened. These moves complement the substantial investment which the Government have made in the service. For example, the number of fully trained paramedics has risen in the last three years from three to 400.

  I am pleased to announce today that a further £14·8 million will be invested in the LAS next year. This will make a significant contribution to improving services further, especially by enabling the LAS to replace its older vehicles with 120 new accident and emergency ambulances, over one third of its current fleet, by the summer.

  Of the new money, £6·8 million in revenue will be provided by the four Thames Regions. In addition to this, the Government will provide an extra £8 million. £4 million extra capital investment will buy the further 120 new accident and emergency vehicles. The remaining £4 million in revenue funding will be used to increase front line ambulance crews and to train more staff to the required level of paramedic skills.

  The Government are determined that this substantial extra investment is well spent and that it produces significant improvements in patient services. For this reason the extra money will be tied to firm targets for improving ambulance performance. The LAS remains below the standard set out in the patients charter with around 60 per cent. of 999 calls currently answered within 14 minutes. We have agreed with the LAS that this should rise to 80 per cent. by next September and to 85 per cent. by April 1995. The Government will keep the LAS under close scrutiny to ensure that these targets are met.

  "Making London Better"
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next intends to meet the chairman of the North East Thames regional health authority to discuss progress implementing "Making London Better".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am writing today to Sir William Staveley, Chairman of the North East Thames regional health authority, to inform him of decisions which I have taken relating to health services in north-east London. These will bring an end to uncertainty in the health service in this part of London and will enable us to take a decisive step forward towards better patient care. I intend to make a further announcement in the new year relating to services in other parts of the capital.

  A copy of my letter to Sir William, and a further more detailed letter to his regional general manager, will be placed in the Library.

  "Making London Better" made clear the strategic need to retain an accident and emergency (A and E) department at University College hospital/Middlesex in order to serve a part of London with a significant local resident population and heavy concentration of visitors, shoppers and commuters. The Government remain committed to this policy, as they do to retaining University College London hospitals (UCLH) as a world-class centre of medical teaching and research. The Government will therefore ensure that UCLH has a secure future.

  UCLH will need to make further progress to improve its efficiency. We welcome the fact that, after pressure from its main purchaser, the Camden and Islington health authority, it has already taken steps to do so. In order to
  718
  ensure that some local acute services are retained at UCLH, discussions are in progress at local level. In addition, we shall accept the advice of the independent specialty reviews to develop the UCLH as the major centre for cancer and cardiac specialty services for this part of London. However, we are not persuaded that renal transplantation work should move from the Royal Free hospital.

  As UCLH has itself made clear, its continuing ability to provide high quality patient care and achieve economies will be enhanced by consolidating its services into fewer buildings. I await its detailed proposals for doing so. In the meantime, transitional funding will be available, against an agreed programme of change.

  "Making London Better" made clear the need to develop the Homerton Hospital to improve local acute services for the people of Hackney. To achieve this, we will undertake a major redevelopment of the Homerton over the next five years, at an estimated cost of around £25 million subject to formal appraisal.

  As part of the Homerton development we will speed up the expansion and improvement of the hospital's accident and emergency department, and the in-patient facilities that support it. This work is in addition to improvements to local primary care facilities which, among other things, will help relieve pressure on local accident and emergency services.

  The Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel is already the main accident and emergency centre in East London. It has seen substantial investment recently in the accident and emergency department. We intend to add to this by completing a new 28-bed admissions ward adjacent to the A and E department.

  In the light of the improvements to A and E services at the Homerton and the Royal London, our firm commitment to retaining the A and E at UCLH, and new projects to improve local primary care, I have decided that it is both safe and sensible to close the small accident and emergency department at the Smithfield site.

  Expert professional advice is that the needs of local residents, and those who work in the City during the day, can be properly met by the alternative services we will be providing. I am also announcing today new investment in the London ambulance service which will enable it to put new emergency vehicles on the road and further improve the service it provides.

  Almost half of the patients attending the A and E department at St. Bartholomew's have relatively minor injuries or conditions which do not need to be treated in an accident and emergency department. Their needs will be met by a new national health service facility at St. Bartholomew's specially geared to treating minor injuries and conditions. I welcome the interest the City has shown in this proposal and we will be exploring what positive and practical contribution they can make to its development. In addition, a permanent ambulance base, staffed by paramedics, will be located at Smithfield.

  The St. Bartholomew's A and E will not close until the additional facilities at the Homerton and the new facility at Smithfield are ready. We anticipate this happening by October 1994.

  The decisions I have announced today are consistent with the long term strategy being developed by the Royal London/St. Bartholomew's/London Chest project team for a phased concentration of services at Whitechapel. This offers the greatest potential for improving patient care.

  719
  Detailed proposals for the first phase of the development of the Whitechapel site will come forward shortly. A number of specialist patient services, including cancer, will be retained at Smithfield for some years to come. Medical research and education will continue at Charterhouse square.

  Family Guidance Clinics
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child and family guidance clinics were in existence in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the

  £'000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  17,698

  22,893

  26,901

  30,391

  n/a3

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting1

  136,316

  143,185

  147,726

  15,791

  5,871

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  —

  684

  810

  1,052

  n/a3

  Medical Practices Committee

  300

  313

  384

  346

  346

  National Biological Standards Board

  8,147

  9,687

  9,592

  9,259

  n/a3

  National Radiological Protection Board

  5,940

  6,142

  6,294

  6,218

  n/a3

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  68,481

  80,332

  75,130

  109,430

  n/a3

  Standing Committee on Post Graduate Medical Education

  310

  357

  370

  424

  424

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting2

  272

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 The functions of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting were altered as a result of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1992.

  2 The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is largely self financing. The contribution from the Department has reduced over a number of years to nil.

  3 Not available.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department sponsors nine executive non-departmental public bodies as listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Appointments to the National Biological Standards board, the Public Health Laboratory Service Board and the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Appointments to both the National Radiological Protection Board and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health makes all the appointments to the Medical Practices Committee except one member who is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health makes all the appointments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and also appoints members on
  720
  projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1992."

  Mr. Sackville
  Gross expenditure at 1992–93 prices, as measured by movements in the gross domestic product, for the financial years 1990–91 to 1993–94 for executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Department of Health is shown in the table. Planned expenditure for the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, Medical Practices Committee and Standing Committee on Post Graduate Medical Education in 1994–95 (at 1992–93 prices) is also shown in the table. Allocations for 1994–95 for the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, National Biological Standards Board, National Radiological Protection Board and Public Health Laboratory Service Board have yet to be agreed. Allocations for 1995–96 will be decided after the 1994 Public Expenditure Survey.

  behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Forty per cent. of the members of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are elected from the professions and 20 per cent. are directly appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who also formally appoints elected members. The body has a president, not a chairman, who is elected by the members from amongst their own number.

  The chairman and members of the Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after consultation and on the recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each local authority what the indicative allocation of social security transfer reviews of social community care grants for 1993–94 would have been if the formula being applied for the composition and distribution of the grant in 1994–95 had previously been applied; and if she will indicate(a) the actual increase or decrease in overall funding to each authority that would have occurred, (b) the impact upon grant per pensioner, (c) the impact upon grant per over-75 and (d) the overall ranking in terms of grant per pensioner.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together in each case with the equivalent year's registration figures.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Registrar General's mid-1992 estimates of residents aged 17 years and over plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years in each local authority area of England and Wales have been compared with roughly corresponding 1993 electorate figures and copies will be placed in the Library. There are no similar population estimates for parliamentary constituencies.

  EC Health Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Health Council of 13 December indicating the voting record of each member state on each item and where no formal votes were taken.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Council adopted resolutions on future guidelines for the "Europe against Cancer" programme and on the extension to the end of 1994 of actions under the "Europe against AIDS" programme. It agreed conclusions on blood self-sufficiency and on, setting up an epidemiological network in the Community, and a declaration on European drug prevention week. The Commission presented its Communication on the framework for action in the field of public health, detailed discussion of which is expected at the next Council meeting, under the Greek Presidency. The Council referred back for further consideration by the Committee of Permanent Representatives the subject of reducing tobacco consumption, specifically the Commission's amended proposal for a directive on the approximation of laws on advertising for tobacco products. No formal votes were taken.

  Health Service Executives
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the salaries of the chief executives of(a) Warrington Hospital Trust, (b) Warrington Community national health service trust and (c) North Cheshire area health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to promote compliance with the British Thoracic Society's guidelines on the treatment and care of asthma sufferers.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service management executive is considering how it can best promote the use of professionally developed clinical guidelines, such as those of the British Thoracic Society, to improve services to patients.

  The NHS management executive recognises the importance of improving the services for people with
  722
  asthma. It has recently introduced a specific payment for general practitioners who organise chronic disease management programmes for the care of patients with asthma which we expect will result in many more GPs using these guidelines. Ninety per cent. of GPs have been approved for this initiative.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards exist to monitor the quality of domiciliary care purchased privately by elderly or disabled persons.

  Mr. Bowis
  Reputable agencies are developing codes of practice to ensure that the quality of care they provide is satisfactory. Local authorities who purchase domiciliary care services are able to incorporate quality standards and assurances in their contracts with providers and to monitor compliance. A number of authorities are also inspecting, on a voluntary basis, other independent providers.

  The social services inspectorate has recently produced a report "Developing Quality Standards for Home Support Services", which has been sent to all social services authorities and made available to independent providers. In due course more detailed guidance on standards is to be produced after further consultations with interested groups. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of patients are seen and assessed for treatment within five minutes of arriving in accident and emergency departments;

  (2) how many patients are not admitted within a month of their second cancelled operation;

  (3) what percentage of patients are seen within 30 minutes of their out-patient appointment time.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the quarter ending 30 September 1993, 80 per cent. (estimated based on samples) of patients attending accident and emergency departments were assessed immediately, only 117 patients failed to be admitted to hospital within one month of their second cancelled operation (most health authorities met this standard in full) and 78 per cent. (estimated based on samples) of patients were seen within 30 minutes of their specified appointment time in out-patient clinics.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of elective episodes, waiting list and booked, by specialty, do not require an overnight stay.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the first six months of 1993–94 national health service hospitals treated some 47 per cent. of elective episodes in the general and acute sector as day cases. The percentages by specialty are not yet available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS patients, by specialty, are admitted within(a) three months and (b) 12 months of being put on a waiting list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The data are shown in the table. The latest year for which figures are available is 1989–90. The figures show, for patients who were admitted, the percentage of those who had been on the waiting list for up to three months, and up to 12 months (including those up to three months).
  723

  Percentage of admissions which took place (a) within three months; (b) within 12 months, of being put on a waiting list

  England 1989–90

  Up to three months (as per cent. of all in specialty

  Up to one year (as per cent. of all in specialty)

  Specialty

  General Surgery

  78·3

  96·2

  Urology

  73·9

  95·9

  T and O

  63·8

  92·0

  ENT

  61·2

  92·6

  Ophthalmology

  57·2

  91·2

  Oral Surgery

  65·1

  93·0

  Restorative Dentistry

  73·9

  100·0

  Paediatric Dentistry

  87·5

  99·4

  Orthodontics

  59·0

  90·2

  Neurosurgery

  89·8

  99·0

  Plastic Surgery

  68·3

  88·3

  Cardothoracic Surgery

  85·2

  98·2

  Paediatric Surgery

  78·4

  95·5

  Accident and Emergency

  80·3

  98·6

  Anaesthetics

  92·3

  99·1

  General Medicine

  95·9

  99·6

  Gastroenterology

  94·2

  99·5

  Endocrinology

  95·2

  99·4

  Clinical Haematology

  96·3

  99·7

  Clinical Physiology

  100·0

  100·0

  Clinical Pharmacology

  99·.2

  100·0

  Audiological Medicine

  100·0

  100·0

  Clinical Genetics

  100·0

  100·0

  Palliative Medicine

  96·2

  96·2

  Cardiology

  83·1

  98·9

  Dermatology

  93·3

  99·2

  Thoracic Medicine

  94·6

  99·6

  Infectious Diseases

  82·8

  99·4

  Genito-urinary Medicine

  100·0

  100·0

  Nephrology

  97·6

  99·8

  Medical Oncology

  99·7

  100·0

  Nuclear Medicine

  100·0

  100·0

  Neurology

  94·4

  99·5

  Clinical Neurophysiology

  97·0

  99·0

  Rheumatology

  90·8

  98·7

  Paediatrics

  96·6

  99·6

  Paediatric neurology

  95·2

  99·7

  Geriatric Medicine

  95·2

  99·3

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  95·6

  100·0

  Obstetrics (delivery)

  62·6

  99·4

  Gynaecology

  81·6

  97·9

  General Practice

  88·9

  94·4

  Maternity function

  50·2

  100·0

  GP (other than maternity)

  89·2

  98·9

  Mental handicap

  93·5

  99·9

  Mental illness

  97·2

  99·2

  Child/adolescent psychiatry

  90·8

  99·5

  Forensic psychiatry

  100·0

  100·0

  Psychotherapy

  100·0

  100·0

  Old age psychiatry

  94·9

  96·9

  Radiotherapy

  99·1

  99·8

  Radiology

  95·1

  99·3

  General pathology

  98·6

  100·0

  Blood transfusion1

  —

  —

  Chemical pathology

  87·2

  99·3

  Haematology

  98·4

  99·7

  Histopathology

  100·0

  100·0

  Immunopathology

  100·0

  100·0

  Medical microbiology1

  —

  —

  Neuropathology1

  —

  —

  Community Medicine

  100·0

  100·0

  Occupational Medicine

  88·9

  100·0

  Other Maternity Event1

  —

  —

  or specialty code invalid

  80·4

  95·8

  1 No elective episodes were recorded for these specialties.

  Source: Hospital Episode System, England, 1989–90

  Notes:

  1. Those episodes with a waiting time under three months are also contained in the figure for waiting times under 12 months.

  2. Specialties are shown as listed at 31 March 1990.

ENVIRONMENT

  Beaches
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the beaches to be monitored by the National Rivers Authority for pollution levels in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Yeo
  Bathing waters, within the scope of the bathing water directive, which were monitored by the National Rivers Authority in 1993–94 are listed in the Department's News Release No. 818. Copies have been placed in the Library. The same waters and any additional waters identified as within the scope of the directive will be monitored next year. Information on the monitoring of waters outside the scope of the directive is available from the NRA.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environmental, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 497, when in 1994 he expects the extension to Beckton will open; how long the delays in start up have been to date; what penalties Alcatel has incurred for late delivery of operating software; and whether the service will also operate in evenings and at weekends.

  Mr. Baldry
  The opening of the extension of the docklands light railway to Beckton will take place next March. The original completion date for the extension was the end of 1992; that date was revised to October 1993 when the docklands light railway appointed a prime contractor to take overall responsibility for delivering the Beckton extension and for the switchover of the existing railway to the new SELTRAC automatic train control system manufactured by Alcatel. The prime contractor is paid once the extension is fully tested and proven reliable. Alcatel is now liable to substantial liquidated damages for each week's delay in delivering the automatic train control system. Next year docklands light railway intends to return to a full-time schedule similar to that of London Underground, with trains running at evenings and weekends across its network.

  Prompt Payment Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress had been made on implementing the Government's prompt payment policy in the construction industry;

  (2) what advice he gives to specialist sub-contractors when experiencing payment delays on securing implementation of the Government's policy on prompt payment;

  (3) when he will be able to implement the prompt payment clauses in Government construction contracts following the issue of guidelines to Government Departments in July.

  Mr. Baldry
  Government Departments are implementing the policy on prompt payment announced in 1992. My Department has already undertaken a first stage of consultation with the construction industry on the further advice to be given to Departments on incorporation of more specific prompt payment clauses than those currently used in Government works and construction contracts. Our
  725
  intention is to provide model amendments to standard forms of contract which will give sub-contractors a right to prompt payment by the main contractor, enforceable through the courts. In the light of comments from industry organisations, our proposals are being revised and a further set will be issued for consultation shortly.

  Sprinkler Systems
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to make the installation of sprinkler systems compulsory in newly constructed homes.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no plans at present to make the installation of sprinkler systems compulsory in newly constructed houses in England or Wales, although this will be kept under review.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities in County Durham requested that he direct the Local Government Commission to conduct a further review in accordance with the revised guidelines both before and after the publication of the Commission's final report.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 3 December,Official Report, column 761.

  Commercial Leaseholds
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to the consultation paper on commercial leaseholds; and if he will list the people or organisations concerned.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of 246 individuals or organisations who have responded to the consultation. A further 13 respondents have asked that their replies remain confidential.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in relation to dispute resolution procedures for commercial leasehold valuations.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department held discussions with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors before issuing our consultation paper on commercial property leases on 27 May 1993. The paper discusses arrangements for dispute resolution procedures, among other issues. The Institution has responded to the paper; we are paying careful attention to its views, as well as to those of the many other respondents.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the results of his consultations on commercial leaseholders.

  Mr. Baldry
  We hope to make an announcement before Easter.

  National Sustainability Strategy
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the national sustainability strategy will include a national coastal strategy to integrate wildlife,726
  land claim, marina developments, fisheries and recreation; and if the biodiversity national plan will include targets to protect threatened flora and farms in the coastal zone.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's proposals for managing the coast and the control of development below the low water mark were set out in the consultation documents issued on 18 October 1993; the responses are under consideration. A sustainable development strategy and the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan will be published in January, after the House returns.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the national sustainability strategy will help to protect the threatened wildlife of lowland raised bogs.

  Mr. Yeo
  The sustainable development strategy will contain a section on wildlife and habitats but the main strategy and programmes for the conservation of species and habitats will be explained in the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan. Both the sustainable development strategy and the biodiversity action plan are due to be published after the House returns in January.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures will be included in the United Kingdom action plan to safeguard lowland raised bogs;

  (2) if the threatened wildlife of lowland raised bogs including the Baltic bog moss, the fen violet, the large heath butterfly and the rosy marsh moth will be listed as priorities in the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan.

  Mr. Yeo
  A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, including species and habitats will be contained in the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan, which is due to be published after the House returns in January.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received calling for the reform of local government in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  Representations are not recorded in this way, so the information could be discovered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Commission's review of Lancashire to be concluded.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission proposes to submit its final recommendations on the structure of local government in Lancashire to my right hon. Friend by the end of July 1994.

  Forests
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, within the newly designated community forest areas, the planting of trees and the provision of public access will be entirely a matter of voluntary agreement between landowners and farmers on the one side and the authorities responsible for the community forests on the other.
  727
  Mr. Yeo
  Both planting and public access will be voluntary in community forests. We are encouraging landowners to make voluntary agreements on new access arrangements through the community woodland supplement which is part of the woodland grant scheme.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the designation of community forest areas confers a more restrictive planning designation upon those areas than existed before.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. Local planning authority decisions on individual planning decisions must take account of the development plan, national policy guidance and other material considerations. Applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Community forest plans should be taken into account in the preparation of development plans.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring regulations he has introduced in relation to the installation of mains-operated smoke detectors in new-built homes.

  Mr. Baldry
  The current building regulations, which came into effect on 1 June 1992, call for mains-operated smoke detectors in new homes. There are no regulations requiring the monitoring of detectors over the life of the dwelling. The fire research station periodically investigates local authority and fire service experience of domestic detectors, under a research contract with my Department.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what circumstances he takes into consideration in deciding to reverse a decision of the Planning Inspectorate;

  (2) how often he has used his powers to overrule a decision reached by the Planning Inspectorate since its inception as an executive agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  I assume the question relates to planning appeal cases recovered for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment's own decision, where the inspectorate's recommendation is not accepted. Each case is decided on its merits, taking into account the available evidence, which includes relevant development plan policies and all other material considerations. The only information available relates to planning appeals involving local public inquiries. In 1992–93, nine of the 166 decisions issued by my right hon. Friend in respect of such cases were contrary to inspectors' recommendations. Between April and September 1993, four of the 66 appeal decisions issued by my right hon. Friend fell into this category.

  Habitats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary State for the Environment what plans he has to protect those areas of the sea that are important for wildlife under the Habitats and Species directive.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's plans for implementation of the EC habitats directive were set out in their public 728
  consultation paper issued on 4 October 1993, a copy of which is in the House library. The document includes proposals for conservation of marine areas which will be selected under the directive.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make the proposals for implementation of the new Habitats directive complement the Government's biodiversity action plan and national sustainability strategy.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes.

  Housing Association
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The position for an individual housing association depends on the particular form of its constitution. For associations which are charities, the position on appointments is determined by the terms of their trusts or governing instruments. For associations which are constituted as industrial and provident societies, appointments may be made by election at an annual general meeting. The Housing Corporation, as part of its statutory function of supervising the performance of registered housing associations, monitors the membership of its management committees and expects them to have an appropriate range of skills and experience.

  European Environmental Bureau
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 497, if he will make a statement on his meeting with United Kingdom members of the European Environmental Bureau held on 6 December.

  Mr. Yeo
  I met United Kingdom representatives of the EEB on 6 December. We discussed the outcome of the Environment Council held on 2 and 3 December and other issues including the European Environment Agency, the fifth action programme, enlargement and subsidiarity.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will clarify the powers of local authorities to borrow by the issue of stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I am aware that some local authorities are contemplating borrowing by the issue of stock. I am also aware that authorities' powers to borrow in this way are not considered clear. The Government have no objection to the issue of stock by authorities. My right hon. Friend has therefore today given an approval, with the consent of the Treasury, to this form of borrowing. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has issued a similar approval today in respect of local authorities in Wales.

  It remains the Government's policy that the great majority of local authorities' requirements for borrowing should be met by the Public Works Loan Board.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many proposals to amend the council tax valuation list have been made in the current year; and how many have already been settled.

  Mr. Curry
  As at 30 November 1993, 860,305 proposals for the alteration of the valuation list in England had been received by the Valuation Office Agency. This represents 4·28 per cent. of the total number of dwellings in the valuation lists. Of these, 146,400 had already been settled. My Department is considering the arrangements for dealing with outstanding appeals with the agency and representatives of the valuation tribunal service.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to amend the implementation timetable for introducing compulsory competitive tendering for housing management in the light of his decision to accelerate the programme for reviewing the structure of English counties and districts.

  Sir George Young
  I have given careful consideration to the timetable for implementing compulsory competitive tendering for housing management in the light of the acceleration of the programme for reviewing the structure of counties and districts in England. I consider that a distinction can be drawn between housing management, as a front-line, locally delivered service and other white-collar services when considering the implementation timetable. The preparatory work for CCT for housing management and supporting white-collar services will not be wasted if an authority is subsequently reorganised and will stand authorities and tenants in good stead. Housing managers are already making good progress in preparing for CCT. I am keen that they should press ahead as soon as possible.

  I recognise, however, that new authorities will need some additional time to complete the competition process. The arrangements for temporary exemptions from CCT for authorities being restructured as a result of the review, announced on 29 March 1993, Official Report, column 56, for white-collar services generally, will therefore continue to apply to housing management. These will allow authorities 18 months following reorganisation to complete the first round of competitive tendering.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has today made a separate announcement about CCT for other white-collar services and for manual services already subject to CCT.

  Officials will write to the secretaries of the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils with further details of the arrangements which my hon. Friend and I have announced today. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to local authority legal services.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 10 November 1992 my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the 730
  Environment announced to the House the Government's decisions on proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering to local authority white-collar corporate and professional services, including legal services, Official Report, column 744. He undertook that the Government would discuss details of implementing these decisions with representatives of local government and other interested parties.

  Since then, my officials have had very useful discussions with the local authority associations, the Audit Commission and CIPFA in several joint working groups. Following this we are today issuing a consultation document inviting comments on detailed proposals for extending CCT to local authority legal services. Early next year, we intend to consult on detailed proposals for CCT for construction-related services—that is, architecture, engineering and property management—followed by IT, finance, personnel and corporate and administrative services.

  The consultation document, copies of which I will place in the Library, includes a definition of legal services, indicates how much legal work authorities will be required to subject to CCT and gives details of modifications which we intend to make to the statutory framework for competitive tendering to ensure that authorities will continue to be able to deliver services in a way which meets their own objectives and local peoples' aspirations.

  We propose that local authorities be permitted to carry out up to 55 per cent., by value, of all legal work using their own staff without going through competition, subject to smaller authorities being able to retain a minimum of £300,000 worth of work. This recognises that certain work must be retained in-house both to enable an authority to fulfil its democratic responsibilities and to act as an intelligent client for bought in services.

  An authority will not be able to award any of the remaining 45 per cent. of work to their own staff unless they have won it in fair and open competition. Experience with the manual services already subject to CCT has shown that competition bring not only financial savings, but also significant improvements in the management, efficiency and quality of public services. I have no reason to doubt that it will bring the same benefits for legal and other white-collar work.

  Following consideration of comments received on the proposals included in this consultation document, I will submit to the House the statutory instruments required under the Local Government Act 1988 to give effect to our proposals. I anticipate CCT will take effect from 1 October 1995 in metropolitan districts and in London.

  In shire counties and districts which are subject to review by the Local Government Commission, the implementation timetable for legal and other white-collar services requires some modification to reflect the acceleration of the Commission's review programme announced recently.

  Our objective is that authorities should, wherever possible, continue to subject services to the pressures of competition which can bring so many benefits. We also hope to see the same benefits realised for corporate and construction-related services as soon as possible.

  An authority's approach to organising these services is determined by the way in which its front-line services are delivered. We would not wish to see new authorities tied to inappropriate arrangements made by their predecessors

  731
  and I have therefore concluded we should not require authorities to implement CCT for their core white-collar functions when a reorganisation is expected in their area.

  I have concluded that the CCT timetable should be modified so that no county or district, or their successor authorities, will be required to implement competition for the new services before reorganisation has taken place in their area, or the decision has been taken that they will remain unchanged. New services will be introduced to the regime in a phased programme thereafter.

  This timeable will apply to all new authorities which come into being in April 1995 or April 1996 and to any areas where there is to be no change from the existing two-tier structure. Authorities reorganised at a later date will continue to benefit from the exemptions already announced.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction has today made a separate announcement about the implementation timetable for CCT for housing management services.

  My officials will write to the secretaries of the Association of County Councils and Association of District Councils giving further details of these modifications. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library.

  Energy Efficiency Committee
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Energy Efficiency Committee was created; how many times it has met; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]: An interdepartmental energy efficiency steering group at senior official level was set up earlier this year and has met twice since then. It reviews progress on the Government estate 15 per cent. energy efficiency target at a strategic level.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to surcharge employers who do not employ a minimum percentage of registered disabled and to provide funds to employers employing above the minimum percentage of registered disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to introduce such a system. The idea of a levy on employers who do not meet a requirement to employ a quota of disabled persons, with the money raised being used for schemes of assistance to people with disabilities, was one of a number of legislative alternatives to the quota scheme discussed in the consultative document published by the Department in 1990, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities". Responses to the consultative document on these issues were inconclusive and following that exercise we decided to retain the quota but keep the position under review. That remains the situation.

  UB40 Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider, when the job seeker's allowance is introduced in April 1996, amending the UB40 card used by employment benefit claimants for identification purposes to incorporate a photograph.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The UB40/UBL18 booklet "Helping You Back to Work: Information for Clients" is issued to new clients when they make a claim to unemployment benefits and is not primarily a means of identifying a client. It is a source of information to clients on their obligations and entitlements.

  We are, however, aware of issues around the identification of clients and the employment service is considering ways in which they can improve the safeguards they provide to clients about the confidentiality of the information they provide them with, and reduce the possibilty of mistaken identity and wrong or inaccurate payments.

  Graduate Employment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many graduates were unable to secure employment by the end of 1992 for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each standard region.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Surveys co-ordinated out by the central services unit on behalf of the higher education institutions show that out of a total of 148,037 people who graduated with first degrees in 1992, 16,763 were unemployed at the end of the year. Figures by standard region are not available.

  European Social Fund
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to include homeless people as a specific group for application of the European social fund in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The primary purpose of the European social fund (ESF) is to help unemployed people back to work through vocational training and guidance and other labour market measures. Unemployed people who are also homeless may therefore benefit from ESF support, but there are no plans for a special priority category for them.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by location the annual fuel heating bills for each of his Department's offices for the last four years, and for this year to date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–01 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1992".
  733
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures set out in the following table show in 1992–93 prices the Employment Department's spend from 1990–91 to 1992–93 and published expenditure plans for 1993–94 to 1995–96 in respect of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department, as listed in Public Bodies 1992.

  Executive non-departmental public bodies (Public Bodies 1992)1

  (£thousand)

  Spend

  Plans

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  16,091

  18,965

  22,622

  23,431

  24,976

  27,200

  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  238

  280

  431

  539

  574

  609

  Equal Opportunities Commission (a)

  24,147

  34,671

  4,746

  5,982

  6,388

  6,846

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications (b) (c)

  4,989

  5,791

  8,743

  3,706

  2,070

  —

  Remploy Ltd.

  65,360

  72,560

  83,995

  92,099

  98,878

  104,902

  Wages Councils (d)

  91

  96

  128

  43

  —

  —

  Women's National Commission (e) (f) (g)

  2138

  3138

  4150

  231

  241

  250

  Health and Safety Commission (h)

  296

  358

  410

  —

  —

  —

  Health and Safety Executive (h)

  173,512

  201,380

  211,381

  224,890

  226,925

  225,338

  Notes:

  (a) Transferred from the Home Office to Employment Department on 1 May 1992.

  (b) NCVQ becomes self financing from 1995–96.

  (c) Figures relate to net expenditure reflecting the actual departmental contribution.

  (d) Wound up August 1993.

  (e) Transferred from Cabinet Office to Employment Department on 1 June 1992.

  (f) Figures for 1993–94 to 1995–96 are provisional and subject to change.

  (g) Although listed in Public Bodies 1992 as an executive body, in previous years the Women's National Commission was listed by the Cabinet Office as an advisory body.

  (h) Disaggregation of HSC/HSE costs undertaken at the end of each financial year.

  1 Information relating to Industrial Training Boards is not included. Some residual costs are recorded for 1991–92 in the table in Public Bodies 1992 but these bodies ceased to receive direct funding prior to 1990–91.

  2 Figures from Public Bodies 1991.

  3 Figures from Public Bodies 1992.

  4 Planned expenditure.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those responsbile for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the chairmen and members of all the boards of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Employment Department.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to training and enterprise councils.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eligibility for training and enterprise council (TEC) board directors is set by the TEC operating agreement. TECs are private companies. The board is appointed in accordance with company law by the members of the TEC. The chairman is elected from the board.

DEFENCE

  Police Study
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Sir John Blelloch and his team will begin their study of the Ministry of Defence police; and when the team is due to report.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence study team, comprising Sir John Blelloch and three other members,
  734
  Details of any revisions to planned expenditure for 1994–95 and 1995–96 following Financial Statement and Budget Report will be published in the departmental report in spring 1994.

  began work on 1 December this year with the principal aim of reviewing the future role, aims, objectives, structure and pay of the Ministry of Defence police. The team has been requested to present its report to the Chairman of the Ministry of Defence police committee by 1 June 1994. The study was commissioned before the major study of defence costs, announced on 1 December. Sir John's work will be of relevance to the wider study and he will be making his findings available to the Ministry of Defence as his review proceeds.

  RAF Support and Maintenance Tasks
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for RAF support and maintenance tasks.

  Mr. Hanley
  Work continues to be undertaken in the support area to ensure the appropriate balance is maintained with the front line and that tasks are undertaken in the most cost-effective manner. The maintenance group element of RAF support command became a defence agency (MGDA) on 1 April 1991 as part of that process. We are now starting an overall review of the MGDA, to evaluate the agency's past performance and look at options for the future, including abolition, privatisation and contractorisation, in whole or in part, in addition to maintaining the status quo. The review will include representatives from the OPSS and the Treasury as well as outside consultants. It will take full accoount of the findings of the feasibility study currently under way into the scope for market testing at RAF Sealand. The trade unions have been informed about the review, which is to be
  735
  completed by 30 June 1994. A copy of the terms of reference of the review has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In the meantime, we have been looking at the potential for undertaking specific support and maintenance tasks more efficiently and cost-effectively in the light of the changing requirement.

  A study has been completed into the equipment supply depots located at RAF Carlisle, RAF Quedgeley (near Gloucester) and RAF Stafford. There is already excess storage capacity overall at these depots and this will increase as our requirement to hold spares decreases. Our studies have concluded that significant savings of some £85 million over 10 years could be achieved by concentrating technical storage at RAF Stafford, which would mean the closure of RAF Carlisle by 31 March 1997 and the progressive run-down and closure of RAF Quedgeley by 31 March 1998 at the latest. Formal consultation with the Trades Unions and other interested parties will now begin and final decisions will be taken in the light of representations made.

  A further study has been completed into the avionics communications-electronics servicing and maintenance depots. This has concluded that appreciable savings could be achieved by transferring the engineering and maintenance tasks currently undertaken at RAF North Luffenham to RAF Sealand. RAF North Luffenham would close by 1 October 1996. I propose to accept this recommendation as the basis for informal consultation with the Trades Unions and other interested parties, subject to any more cost-effective solution than RAF Sealand being identified by the MGDA review.

  I am placing a copy of both consultation documents in the Library of the House.

  Submarine Operations
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the subfacts scheme for providing fishermen with advance notice of dived submarine operations will be extended to cover the Minches and the Sea of Hebrides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The extension of SUBFACTS into the Minches and Sea of Hebrides will take place on 10 January 1994. On the same date there will be changes in the arrangements for broadcasting SUBFACTS information in the northern parts of the Irish sea and in waters to the west of Scotland. British Telecom marine radio service will transmit SUBFACTS information six times a day, on both VHF and MF, for the entire Clyde subordinate sea area, from Cape Wrath to the Calf of Man. In addition, the Clyde Coastguard will transmit SUBFACTS information six times a day over the Inner Clyde exercise areas, out to a line extending from the Mull of Kintyre to Corsewall Point. Throughout the Clyde subordinate sea area, fishermen will at any time be able to obtain SUBFACTS information on request from HM Coastguard. These revised broadcasting arrangements have been worked out in consultation with the fishing industry safety group, and will be reviewed by the group after 12 months.

  Following the extension of SUBFACTS into the Plymouth and Portland exercise areas earlier this year, this latest extension of SUBFACTS meets the Government's commitment to operate the scheme in all regularly used submarine exercise areas around the coast of the United Kingdom. Together with the operational procedures set out
  736
  in the code of practice for submarines which was published in October, it represents an important step forward in maritime safety and will help to minimise the risk of any further incidents between dived submarines and fishing vessels.

  Support Costs
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the areas which will be examined with a view to reducing support costs in preparation for the study entitled "Front Line First".

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 7 December at column 176.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how he exercised his controlling share holding in International Military Services Ltd.; and how often he asked for, or was given, reports on the activities of this company;

  (2) how he, or his predecessors, exercised their shareholding in International Military Services Ltd.; and what reports of its activities were asked for, or given.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors have exercised their controlling shareholding in International Military Services Ltd. in the normal commercial way by attending, or being represented at, the annual general meeting of the Company. To facilitate this they have been provided with the statutory consolidated financial statements.

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

  Mr. Hanley
  Five vehicles, including a reserve vehicle for the Secretary of State, were provided for Defence Department Ministers in 1990–91 at a cost to the defence budget of some £4,200,000.

  Emergency Landings, Newcastle Airport
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, aircraft types and nature of the emergency for all emergency or precautionary landings by military aircraft at Newcastle airport during 1992; and which of those aircraft were armed with live weapons.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, aircraft types and circumstances of all(a) Army and (b) Royal Navy helicopter major accidents in 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information for all aircraft types is as follows:
  737

  Date

  Aircraft

  Accident

  24 February 1987

  Sea king (RN)

  Falmouth Bay. Cause not determined.

  18 March 1987

  Lynx (A)

  Germany. Six minutes into sortie the rotor gear box seized.

  16 July 1987

  Gazelle(A)

  Canada. During unauthorised manoeuvre the tail struck the ground braking off the tail boom. A crewman on the ground was fatally injured.

  23 September 1987

  Sea King (RN)

  Culdrose. Tail rotor failure during final approach. Crashed on runway.

  15 October 1987

  Sea Harrier (RN)

  North West coast of Scotland. Aircraft suffered birdstrike during low level sortie.

  16 October 1987

  Wessex (RN)

  Cornwall. Engine failure during winching exercise.

  23 October 1987

  Gazelle (A)

  Middle Wallop. During sloping ground practice, the aircraft slid backwards causing the port skid to dig into the ground.

  25 November 1987

  Gazelle (RN)

  Predannack. Loss of yaw control during turn.

  Jaguar Incident, Solway Firth
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the military aircraft accident summary on the accident to a Royal Air Force Jaguar in the Solway firth on 12 September 1990 was released.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 21 October 1992.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what altitude the accident aircraft's leader was flying at the time of the crash of a Royal Air Force Jaguar in the Solway firth on 12 September 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft was slightly above 250 ft.

  Low flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the Royal Air Force inspectorate of flight safety's review in 1990 of the potential safety benefits, in respect of bird strike hazards, of introducing speed limits on fast jets operating at low level.

  Mr. Hanley
  The outcome of the RAF inspectorate of flight safety's review was that speeds during low-level flight should be constrained to that required to achieve the objective of each low-level sortie. No specified limits were either recommended or imposed. In practice, the speed of aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low flying system (UKLFS) is regulated in order to limit noise disturbance to those on the ground. The normal maximum cruising speed overland in the UKLFS is 450 knots.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to restricting low flying during peak bird migration months.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom Military Low Flying Handbook contains seasonal information on areas of high bird concentration, and some specific locations are granted permanent or seasonal avoidances. My Department is conscious of the need to keep low-flying military aircraft clear of such concentrations and measures to achieve this are kept under continuous review.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the minimum weather requirements for low-level flight at night by fast jet aircraft not equipped with terrain-following radar or electro-optical navigation equipment.
  738
  Mr. Hanley
  The minimum weather requirements for low level flight at night by fast jet aircraft not equipped with terrain following radar or electro-optical navigational equipment are the normal visual flight rules for fast jets operating in the United Kingdom low flying system, namely: flight visibility of five kilometres, and 1,500 metres horizontal and 500 feet vertical separation from cloud.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the reason for the increase in the minimum authorised altitude for night low flying over the United Kingdom by US Air Force F111 aircraft from October 1992, from 400 to 1,000 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The decision to increase to 1,000 ft the authorised minimum altitude for USAF F111 aircraft flying at night in the United Kingdom was taken by the USAF in the light of a reassessment of the training needs of the aircrew concerned.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum authorised altitude for Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft conducting terrain following radar flight in daylight visual meteorological conditions in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is 300 ft.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the requests made to his Department for authorisation of low-level jet flying between the hours of 2300 and 0700 since 1988, listing in each case the date of the request, the unit submitting the request, the nature of the flying for which authorisation was sought, and his Department's response to the request.

  Mr. Hanley
  Such requests and the responses to them are held on departmental files but separate records are not kept. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is most unlikely however, that such training would have been authorised other than in a very small number of exceptional cases.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods are used by military aircrew to ensure accurate adherence to minimum authorised altitudes during low flying in aircraft not equipped with radar altimeters.

  Mr. Hanley
  Those training aircraft which are not equipped with radar altimeters make use of the barometric altimeter, which indicates the altitude of the aircraft above mean sea level. From the initial stages of flying training
  739
  students are taught to recognise and maintain their minimum authorised height above the ground; they will also spend a greater proportion of their time at higher than their authorised minimum levels until they graduate to squadron service.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of the low flying avoidance area around Milford Haven.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not my Department's practice to release specific details of the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the fast jet types which are authorised to conduct night low flying in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  The fast jet types normally authorised to operate in the United Kingdom night low flying system are: Buccaneer, Canberra, F-15, Harrier, Jaguar and Tornado.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sources of information are made available to military pilots on the location and timing of activities on the ground involving gatherings of large numbers of people, to enable them to observe the regulations concerning overflight of such activities; and what definition of large number of people is used in applying these regulations.

  Mr. Hanley
  Temporary avoidances of gatherings of large numbers of people are promulgated by notices to airmen. In this context, a large number of people is defined as 10,000 although temporary avoidances are frequently arranged for events involving significantly fewer people.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distance from the shore of the United Kingdom beyond which military aircraft operating at less than 2,000ft are not required to book into the low flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Aircraft are not required to book into the United Kingdom low flying system if the low flying element of a sortie takes place over the sea more than three nautical miles from the coastline (half a nautical mile in the case of helicopters and light fixed wing aircraft).

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the planned route of the United States Air Force F-111 aircraft involved in the aircraft proximity hazard incidents at Plymouth airport on 15 October 1992 and 21 October 1992 was a fixed low flying route in use by the unit concerned; and what changes were made to the route following these incidents.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft involved in the two incidents were operating on a standard route. Both RAF and United States air force air crew use standard routes as little as possible which are in any case replaced at regular intervals.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties are conducted for each student on the Royal Air Force advanced flying training courses at RAF Chivenor and RAF Valley, in which the student is required to navigate at low level to a set of turning points whose locations are not known until after the student boards the aircraft.
  740
  Mr. Hanley
  There are two distinct types of exercises which are flown by students.

  Handling exercises (in which the student can either fly as a singleton or as part of a formation) are not flown to a pre-planned route, but are dependent on weather conditions, terrain, distance from base and possible flying restrictions. Suitable general areas for flying would however be decided upon before such exercises commenced. A student would fly a total of six sorties of this type.

  Navigation exercises (again either as a singleton or as part of a formation) are generally flown to a pre-planned set route. During such exercises however students are required to deviate from the planned route to practice self-navigation to a prominent point or to simulate unexpected weather avoidance or a change of tactical planning. On these occasions particular emphasis is placed on avoiding restricted or built-up areas. Students would fly a total of 13 singleton sorties, whilst 11 would be flown as part of a formation.

  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to authorise the reduction of the minimum altitude at which Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft are permitted to fly on automatic terrain following radar in inclement meteorological conditions to less than 500 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The restrictions placed on low flying training are kept under review.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the eastward directional flow control for low-flying aircrew was introduced in the Clywd valley north of Denbigh.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 10 August 1992.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Harrier pilots trained at the US Marine Corps air station at Yuma, Arizona, retain their qualification to fly at 200 ft at night following completion of the training course.

  Mr. Hanley
  Any low level qualification gained as part of the overall training at Yuma will last for 90 days. Pilots who do not fly a night sortie in that period have to fly two simulator sorties plus two night time low level sorties to regain their night time low level currency. The minimum height at which Harrier GR7 aircraft would be authorised to fly at night in the United Kingdom would be 250 ft.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations are contained in the group air staff orders of No. 1 RAF Strike Command, which supplement the instructions in the UK military low-flying handbook concerning use of the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Headquarters No. 1 group's air staff orders contain regulations governing low flying which are specific to aircraft of that group and which amplify the regulations set out in the United Kingdom military low flying handbook.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests have been received from foreign air forces since 1990 for permission to fly at less than 250 ft over the United Kingdom; and what response was given to each request.

  Mr. Hanley
  A request was received for a small number of USAF aircrew based in the United Kingdom to be
  741
  permitted to carry out a limited amount of Operational Low Flying training in the Welsh tactical training area during December 1990 in preparation for deployment to the Gulf. The request was approved but, in the event, no such training took place. No further requests have been received from foreign air forces since that time.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of complaints about low flying in 1992 were withdrawn after the complainant had been interviewed by RAF Provost and Security Service investigators.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the hon. Member might wish to know that only a very small number of complaints are withdrawn, although a significantly greater number are not pursued further, at the instigation of the complainant, in the light of information provided during the interview with the RAF Provost and security service investigator.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average time taken by Secretariat (Air Staff) 2b to send initial responses to public complaints about low flying in each year since 1985; and what is the current target for the timeliness of such responses.

  Mr. Hanley
  Such statistics are not maintained and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In line with the provisions of the citizens charter, the air staff secretariat introduced in July 1991 a target time of four weeks for initial response to complaints from members of the public about low flying. This target has been met in all but exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed on the types and locations of simulated targets for mock attacks by Harrier GR7 aircraft during night low-level electro-optical sorties.

  Mr. Hanley
  The restrictions placed on types and locations of simulated targets for mock attacks by Harrier GR7 aircraft during night low level sorties are the same as those which apply to sorties flown during the day. Targets are carefully selected and account is taken of the location of nearby habitation and the environmental and safety factors involved.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the standing instructions to RAF Provost and Security Service flying complaints flight personnel concerning the aims and conduct of their interviews with complainants about low flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  The documents requested are either classified or protected by a privacy marking and cannot be released.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average time taken from receipt of the complaint by his Department to the final response to the complainant for all complaints about low flying which resulted in a full investigation of the circumstances, in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  Such statistics are not maintained and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  742
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to devolve the investigation of low flying complaints to regional units of the RAF Provost and Security Service.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has no such plans.

  Aircraft Repair Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost threshold used to determine whether an aircraft damaged in an accident is worth repairing; and if he will list the changes made in that threshold figure since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no cost threshold used to determine whether an aircraft damaged in an accident is worth repairing. The assessment and categorisation of a damaged aircraft, and the subsequent decision to repair it or not, is based on a number of financial, engineering and operational factors which are applied on a case by case basis. These include the unexpired fatigue life of the aircraft concerned, the overall availability and future in-service life of the aircraft type, any special equipment that may be fitted, the costs of materials and manpower, and the availability of funds.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of repairs to military aircraft damaged by bird strikes in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not recorded separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Simulated Attack Targets
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes were made to the measures for monitoring United States 3 Air Force compliance with the provisions of the RAF Strike Command approved list of simulated targets for toss or dive attack, following the report on the accident to an F111 near Lauder on 28 July 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  United States air force aircraft based in the United Kingdom are subject to the same regulations governing simulated toss and dive attacks as other military aircraft based here. This situation has not changed since 1987.

  WE177 Bomb
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) extend or (b) shorten the service life of the WE177 bomb; and what effect the cancellation of the tactical air-to-surface missile has had on the planned service life of the WE177 bomb.

  Mr. Hanley
  The announcement that we do not plan in current circumstances to procure a tactical air-to-surface missile does not affect the planned service life of the WE177 bomb.

  Tornado Incident, Dalmellington
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the incident in which a Royal Air Force Tornado struck electricity cables near Dalmellington on 26 November 1990 occurred during a run-in between an intitial point and a simulated target; and what was the estimated speed at which the aircraft hit the cable.
  743
  Mr. Hanley
  The incident occurred before the aircraft had reached the initial point. It was flying at an estimated speed of 435 knots when it struck the cable.

  Trident
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the procedures required for co-ordination or targeting, air tasking and airspace deconfliction between naval and air force commands when the substrategic nuclear role is transferred to the Trident system.

  Mr. Hanley
  These factors have been taken fully into account.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the requirement for visible deployments of Trident submarines to foreign ports in order to demonstrate credibility and commitment in the substrategic role.

  Mr. Hanley
  The credibility of a submarine-launched deterrent has never been judged to rely on visits to foreign ports.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated additional expenditure required on the Trident programme to adapt the weapon to perform the tactical or theatre nuclear roles currently performed by tactical aircraft; and if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated additional expenditure into(a) missile, (b) warhead, including nuclear testing, (c) submarine, (d) command and control systems, (e) shore construction and (f) operating costs.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to provide details of these costs separately. The adaptation of the Trident system to meet our sub-strategic requirements will not require any additional nuclear tests, and the overall additional cost will be small.

  "Panorama"
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what opportunities were given to his Department to vet the script of the BBC "Panorama" programme on the Secret Intelligence Service, broadcast on 22 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government were aware in advance of the contents of the "Panorama" programme on 22 November, but the responsibility for its contents was that of the BBC alone.

  Airborne Nuclear Capability
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated saving in the annual budget of the Royal Air Force as a result of the withdrawal of airborne nuclear capability.

  Mr. Hanley
  The airborne nuclear capability has not been withdrawn.

  Flying Hours
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated overall effect on defence expenditure of a reduction of 10 per cent. in the number of hours flown per year by military aircraft.
  744
  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all changes over the past five years in (a) the Supreme Allied Commander Europe-recommended number of flying hours per year and (b) the SACEUR-recommended minimum number of flying hours per year for front-line tactical fighter aircrew.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no such changes in the past five years.

  RAF Fast Jet Aircrew
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current total number of combat-ready strike/attack/reconnaissance fast jet aircrew in the Royal Air Force;

  (2) what was the turnover rate of combat-ready fast jet strike/attack/reconnaissance aircrew in the Royal Air Force in 1992, expressed as a proportion of the total number of such aircrew.

  Mr. Hanley
  The turnover rate of combat ready fast jet strike/attack/reconnaissance aircrew in the Royal Air Force in Financial Year 1992–93, expressed as a proportion of the total number of such aircrew (505), was 26 per cent. Personnel left the strike/attack/reconnaissance force on promotion, for training for another role or on leaving the Service. Replacement aircrew were trained or promoted to replace them.

  Controlled Airspace
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date, location, aircraft involved and circumstances of each of the incidences of unauthorised penetration of controlled and/or restricted airspace since 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is classified.

  Tornado
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use has been made of the highlands restricted area by Tornado aircraft from(a) the German air force, (b) the German navy and (c) the Italian air force.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has no record of German air force, German navy or Italian air force Tornado aircraft being authorised to use the Highlands restricted area.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the reason for the increase in the minimum authorised height for trinational Tornado training establishment crews in 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  The minimum authorised height for tri-national Tornado training establishment crews prior to 1991 was 250 feet for instructors only. This was increased to 500 ft in 1991 following a reassessment of the need for these personnel to operate below this height during their tour at RAF Cottesmore.

  Sea King Incident
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the serial number, location and circumstances of the accident to a Royal Navy Sea King on 19 January
  745
  1991, listed in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992, table 3·9; and what are the reasons for the omission of this accident from the list in the answer of 6 May 1993, columns 243-46.

  Mr. Hanley
  The accident referred to involved a Royal Navy Sea King Mk 4, tail number ZA312, which was operating approximately 29·5nm outside Al Jubayl airfield in Saudi Arabia. The helicopter was preparing to land when the tail rotor blade struck the ground. There were no injuries. An administrative error resulted in the omission of this accident from the list contained in the answer given on 6 May at columns 243-46.

  Condor System
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents were reported under the Royal Air Force Condor system in each year since 1979; if he will provide a breakdown of these figures into categories of incident; and what changes have been made to the Condor system since its introduction.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no categories of incident under the CONDOR system. As reports submitted under the Condor system are in confidence, long term database records are not maintained. Records available are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Condor reports

  1989

  25

  1990

  22

  1991

  25

  1992

  27

  1993

  121

  1Up to 9 December 1993.

  Since the introduction of the CONDOR system, a confidential telephone answering machine has been added to supplement written submissions.

  Defence Service Employees
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is planning to take to ensure alternative employment for former and current employees in the defence service in Wales.

  Mr. Hanley
  Wherever practicable, employees under notice of redundancy are offered alternative jobs within MOD or other Government Departments in the area. Where this is not possible, the MOD offers up to eight weeks paid leave for job-search and approved re-training, and also provides a counselling and outplacement service which liaises closely with local offices of the employment service and training and enterprise councils (TECs) to help with job-search and vocational training.

  The employment service and the TECs also provide a range of programmes and services designed to take account of special local circumstances to help former employees of any industry, including defence, to help them find alternative employment.

  Harriers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which domestic RAF bases will be considered as potential headquarters for the German-based Harriers in the event of their being brought back to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans to return the Harriers based in Germany to the United Kingdom.

  RAF Personnel (Commercial Recruitment)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the levels of recruitment of retiring RAF personnel by the commercial air sector, and its implications for the intro-productive service figures for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF's personnel planning takes account of many factors, including an assessment of the numbers likely to be lost to the civil air sector. Because of the length of training and the need to make the most efficient and economical use of scarce and expensive training resources however, the RAF does not make large changes to its recruiting and training targets from year to year. The aim is to balance recruitment and outflow to achieve stability in the service.

  Harrier Crash (Iraq)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action to date has been taken to retrieve sensitive equipment that was aboard the Harrier aircraft that crashed in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq on 23 November; what was the cause of the accident; if he will send to the hon. Member for Don Valley a copy of the accident report inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recoverable wreckage from the accident has been transported to Incirlik, Turkey for onward shipment to the UK. The cause of the accident is still under investigation by the RAF board of inquiry. A summary of its findings will be produced in the normal way and a copy will be sent to the hon. Member. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Western European Union Defence Corps
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of the Western European Union defence corps.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no such formation as the WEU defence corps. The WEU Petersberg declaration of June 1992 announced that military units for WEU missions would be drawn on a case-by-case basis from forces with national and NATO roles. The WEU planning cell in Brussels has been given responsibility for compiling a list of units which could be made available for potential WEU operations. Multinational units which have already been declared available include the European corps, the multinational division (central) and the UK/NL amphibious force.

  Nitro-cellulose and Nitro-glycerine
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 289, what production capabilities in the United Kingdom he regards as strategic necessities; and if he will make a statement.
  747
  Mr. Aitken
  The importance of particular production capabilities for defence alters over time. Such matters are kept under review, but we do not categorise particular production capabilities as being essential to maintain at all costs whatever the circumstances.

  Racial Discrimination
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 295, what was the nature of the complaint relating to racial discrimination in the Army which has been resolved and how it was resolved.

  Mr. Hanley
  The complaint in the army involved racial abuse. The matter was investigated under the normal redress of grievance procedures and resolved to the satisfaction of the victim by means of a public apology.

  Ammunition
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 292, what commitments he has received from the firms mentioned in his answer relating to the suipply of ammunition in a time of crisis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such commitments are required. Provision of ammunition for a time of crisis is managed by the maintenance of reserve stocks, not by any arrangement with industry, either in the United Kingdom or abroad.

  Reserve Forces
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 296, what consideration he has given to deleting the private addresses and service affiliations from the responses he has received to his consultative document on the reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Simply to delete the address and signature block would not in all cases serve to prevent the identity of the respondent being established. Moreover, to delete all references to service connections would in many cases reduce the value of the letter by removing the context and background experience against which the comments were made. Rather than publish the letters complete, therefore, I consider it appropriate to release a factual summary of the responses, supported by extracts from the replies.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of advertising by his Department has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Centrally controlled expenditure by my Department on advertising in the financial year 1979–80 to 1992–93 was as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £ million

  1979–80

  8·07

  1980–81

  6·81

  1981–82

  4·25

  1982–83

  3·98

  748

  Financial year

  Expenditure £ million

  1983–84

  5·37

  1984–85

  7·37

  1985–86

  8·66

  1986–87

  9·02

  1987–88

  8·26

  1988–89

  12·60

  1989–90

  17·80

  1990–91

  12·31

  1991–92

  11·47

  1992–93

  8·70

  It is not possible to provide the details of expenditure on advertising for each of the last 12 months without disproportionate cost. Estimated expenditure for the financial year 1993–94 is, however, £8·78 million.

  Hercules C130
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from hon. Members and British industry in support of the Hercules C130 J programme.

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received a variety of representations from hon. Members and British industry regarding the Hercules rolling replacement programme, including a number supporting the C-130J.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of operating and maintaining the existing C130 K Hercules fleet of transport aircraft in Royal Air Force service including the personnel cost of both the associated air and ground crews.

  Mr. Hanley
  The average annual operating and maintenance cost (at 1993–94 outturn prices) of the RAF C130 K Hercules fleet (CMk 1, CMk3 and CMk1K)) is approximately £140,000,000. This includes personnel costs but excludes depreciation, interest on capital, station and administration costs.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) the first and (b) the last C130 K Hercules aircraft entered squadron service with the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Aitken
  The first C130K entered squadron service on 1 August 1967 while the last aircraft entered service in 1970.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications have been made to the C130 K Hercules fleet since it entered service; when these modifications were carried out; and what numbers of aricraft were involved.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 433 modifications has been embodied in the C-130 fleet since its introduction in service. One hundred and five are considered to be significant from both a cost and operational point of view. The most notable of these are as follows:1972—Introduce W MK2 Met aircraft. One aircraft embodied.
  1976—To introduce a new centre wing structure. 100 per cent. fleet embodied.
  1976—To introduce reconditioned outer wing. Applied to 95 per cent. of the fleet. Fully embodied.
  1979—Convert MK1 to MK3 (15ft extn). Applied to 50 per cent. of the fleet. Fully embodied.
  1982—Introduce full modification to enable use as tanker. Applicable to only six aircraft. Fully embodied.

  749
  1982—Introduce in-flight refuelling facility. 100 per cent. fleet embodied.
  1983—Introduce Station Keeping Equipment. Applied to 34 per cent. of the fleet. Fully embodied.
  1985—Introduce flight deck lighting compatible with night vision goggles. Applicable to 10 aircraft for use with technical squadrons. Fully embodied.
  1993—Introduce flight deck protective armour. Fitted to three aircraft in response to an Urgent Operational Requirement in support of Operation Cheshire. Fully embodied.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Hercules rolling replacement programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  As announced in the Defence White Paper in July, we intend to undertake a rolling programme to replace or refurbish our C-130 Hercules aircraft, starting with about half the fleet by the end of the century. In order to determine whether refurbishment or replacement offers the best value for money we have placed a contract for studies to establish the costs and risk of refurbishment. It has now been decided that we will issue an invitation to Lockheed Aerospace Systems Corporation to tender for the 750
  provision of a replacement aircraft. We shall also—as part of the front line first study—be exploring options for greater use of leasing of cargo aircraft, as my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the Defence Committee on 1 December.

  The issue of an invitation to tender does not constitute a commitment to purchase any replacement aircraft. It will, however, provide essential data on price from which we can make a valid assessment of all the options. Following comparison of the results of the studies and prices for new aircraft we hope to be in a position to reach a decision by the end of 1994.

  Defence Imports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the importing of one battle tank from the Russian Federation as listed in the United Nations register of conventional arms.

  Mr. Aitken
  The tank was imported for defence research and development purposes.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

EC Draft Budget
2.38 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Community's preliminary draft budget for 1994 (Vols. 0 and 1 to 6 inclusive), or such of its contents as were communicated to them by the United Kingdom permanent representative of the Community prior to its publication, was reviewed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European Questions (OPD(E)) prior to the Economic and Financial Council's establishment of the Community's draft budget on 22nd July 1993, and with what results.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, it is not the practice of this Government, nor of previous governments, to give details of the subjects discussed in Cabinet or in Cabinet committees.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am a little disappointed with that reply? Is he further aware that the government publication Open Government, published on very glossy paper at a price to the general public of some £11, which will of course ensure a very wide circulation, states in paragraph 2.32:
"Since the last election, the Government has taken further steps to improve understanding of the operation of government. In May 1992, the Government announced the names and membership of the Ministerial Cabinet Committees, sub-committees and working groups".
They followed that up with a further publication giving the complete terms of reference of those committees. The particular one I have mentioned in my Question deals with European Community affairs. Is it beyond the realms of reason that the Government, while not being asked to reveal details of what occurred in the committee, should nevertheless be asked whether the committee did consider a particular question? Would national security benefit all that much by the Government's refusal even to say to the public whether
1352
or not the committee had considered this colossal expenditure out of the Treasury into the European institutions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in reminding the House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister went further than any previous Administration in publishing the names, membership and terms of reference of Cabinet committees. I draw the noble Lord's attention to another document, which he will find in the Library, called Questions of Procedure for Ministers. Paragraph 17 states:
"The internal processes through which a decision has been made or the level of committee by which it is taken should not be disclosed".
The noble Lord is inviting me, in a nice, modest way, to go a little further.
Lord Peston: My Lords, there are two parts to the Question. The noble Earl is saying in regard to the first part that he will not say yes and he will not say no. He simply will not say. But does he not notice that there is a paradox in that the Question has a second part which concerns your Lordships and indeed people in the other place? It asks "and with what results". The Government certainly have an obligation to say what the results are of any of their activities. Does he not note that there is a paradox in that he will not say what they are talking about and yet he has an obligation to inform the House of the consequences of the Government's actions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what is well known in this House is the results of the Government's actions. Those have been given on a number of previous occasions on very similar questions to that posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. As a result of the decisions taken your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Council supported the United Kingdom's views that the Community budget should be subject to the same rigour as national spending.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while everyone following these proceedings would recognise that it is understandable and acceptable that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, should ask this Question, is it not unrealistic that the Opposition Front Bench—the possible alternative government—should back up a premature disclosure in the way that is suggested by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that I was able to answer what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was aiming at, which was the result that we achieved in Brussels.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for raising the matter. It is the duty of government not to appear to be stupid. I merely asked the noble Earl whether or not he recognised that, in refusing to say that the Government were discussing a specific topic—and I entirely accept that it is within the rules—he was making the Government look foolish because they are willing to

1353
make a statement about the consequences of a subject that they refuse to say they talked about in the first place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is extremely clever at asking questions, as any good academic should be. However, he wanted to know the results of the Cabinet sub-committee discussion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he has placed himself in further difficulty by his reply? Is he aware that the terms of reference of the Cabinet sub-committee concerned is to consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community and to report? I did not ask the noble Earl for the details of the discussions; I asked whether the Government had considered them. He can say yes or no to that. We know the results perfectly well. Is the noble Earl aware that the truthful answer is that they have never considered it and took no action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would not expect me to say yes to that question.

Insurance Industry Legislation: Review
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the legislation which appears to have made the British insurance industry responsible for paying claims in the United States against a collapsed British company.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, a working group comprising representatives of the DTI and the Association of British Insurers is currently reviewing the scope of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that the BBC's "Money Programme" on 28th November gave the impression that huge liabilities had been incurred in the United States to be met by the compensation scheme in the British 1975 Act? That situation was not foreseen in 1975 nor intended.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are aware of the liabilities which have arisen in the USA from the insolvency of the insurance subsidiaries of the London United Investment Group. The net cost is expected to be between £170 million and £250 million, taking into account the recoveries which will eventually accrue to the Policyholders Protection Board. However, it was always envisaged that non-UK residents taking out policies directly with insurers established within the UK would benefit from the protection of the Act.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this disturbing matter. Does the noble Viscount agree that
1354
the purpose of the 1975 legislation was to provide protection for the consumer? Will he confirm that that was its purpose and that what seems to have happened is a misuse of that legislation for other purposes? I welcome the Government looking again at the matter. Can the noble Viscount say whether we shall hear shortly that the Government will be taking some action?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I confirm that the aim of the legislation was to provide a safety net for policyholders in the event of an unforeseen insolvency. The Government recognise the anxiety expressed. That is why the group was set up to review the scope of the Act. The working group will report early in the New Year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend's reply mean that the burden will be borne by the British public through higher premiums? Does he agree that in present circumstances protection in this field should not be extended beyond the European Union, whose members can be expected to give some reciprocity?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, possible premium increases are a matter for the insurers. Nevertheless, free competition serves to ensure that any increases will be kept to a minimum. A limit on the UK nationals would be against our UK obligations. Any limitation to EC nationals would need to be reviewed in the light of our international obligations.

Industry: Government Policy
2.48 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Having regard to the statement in the House on Thursday, 25th November 1993 by the Lord Privy Seal (H.L. Deb. col. 417) that he is not prepared to accept the charge that the Government have no policy for industry, whether, for the guidance of industry and the public, they are willing to divulge their existing policy for industry in a White Paper or other appropriate government publication.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government demonstrate their commitment to promoting the competitiveness of industry across the full range of their policies.
Lord Benson: My Lords, that response did not answer the Question in any way. Perhaps I may put a further question in the hope that I shall receive a more conclusive answer. Manufacturing industry is the bedrock of the British economy. Relatively it has been declining as compared with other nations over a great many years. Do the Government regard it as their responsibility to reverse that trend? If so, when and how will they do so?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am saddened both by the noble Lord's response to my Answer and indeed his supplementary question. I was hoping that he would take the opportunity to congratulate the Government on

1355
following policies over the course of the past few years that have led to an immense recovery in the fortunes of the British economy, leading the European economy out of recession against a background of low interest rates, low inflation and a competitive exchange rate. That is what our industrial strategy has been and that is why it has been so successful.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, cannot the Government's policy for industry be stated in a single sentence: that it is so far as possible their policy to see that industry is privately owned and so far as possible under the rule of law to see that it is independently managed and conducted?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble and learned friend puts it well and rather better than I did.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, did the Minister's answer mean that he planned a competitive exchange rate?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the exchange rate is at a competitive level, and that has been a great help to our exporting industries.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government have provided all the means for industry to make good and that it is up to industry itself to prove that it is capable of taking advantage of the opportunities?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. We have provided the right economic framework and British industry is now taking advantage of that opportunity. Of course, we still have problems with competitiveness and in overcoming some difficulties overseas but, against the background that I mentioned earlier, we have every opportunity of overcoming any difficulties.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, why is it that the Government are so reticent about letting us have a discussion document on the subject of industrial policy? The noble Lord, Lord Benson, to whom we are all indebted, has repeatedly asked for that. We have had discussion documents on a variety of issues. We would all be very happy to participate in debating any document that the Government put forward. Why cannot that be done?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not that the Government are against having White Papers. They can be very useful, but they are no substitute for ensuring that the overall thrust of government policy is aimed at promoting the interests of government. Only a couple of weeks ago we had the Budget. That was a good statement of industrial policy in itself.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the prime functions of Parliament is to review and pass judgment on the policies and plans of the executive? In view of that and of the fact that the Government do have a policy, would it not be helpful for them to give further details of their policies so that we can debate them more clearly than would be possible following his Answer?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the lack of a White Paper has never stopped either House of Parliament discussing the effects and policies of central government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a "competitive exchange rate". Does he agree that we now have a competitive exchange rate because we were forced out of the ERM with ignominy? As he appears to be in favour of competitive exchange rates, can he give the assurance that under no circumstances at any time in the future will we enter another fixed exchange rate regime?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance and nor would he expect me to. What we are discussing in this Question is industrial policy.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, all relevant statistics still indicate that we have a continuing manufacturing problem. Does my noble friend accept that if that problem is not recognised openly, it will not be addressed and the country will continue to decline in the economic league tables in the way that it has declined for far too long for any of us to be comfortable with?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend sounds a very fair warning not just to government but particularly to industry and the leaders of industry who make the investment decisions, particularly vis à vis manufacturing industry.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware of how excellent the questioning of some of his noble friends has been on this matter? If the noble Lord can leave Alice in Wonderland to one side for a moment, may I ask him why, if the British economy is doing as well as he says that it is, his right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred just two weeks ago to the low productivity of the British economy, the managerial incompetence of the leaders of manufacturing industry and similar things? If we are doing so well, why did he feel the need to make those remarks? Would it not be much more helpful if he were to give us a systematic statement of the Government's views so that we can debate them fully? Many of us would be very supportive of certain things that the Government might like to do. We would just like to know what they are.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it really would have been Alice in Wonderland if the kind of economic background that we have today had existed under the last Labour Government. In making his statement about British industry, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was very much following the theme of the previous question from my noble friend Lord Laing, who talked about the challenges facing industry. There are challenges—and what the Government believe that they have done is to provide industry with the tools to finish the job.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not clear that there is concern on all sides of the House about the fact that this country's industrial base is steadily contracting and has

1357
done so for many years? Whatever the Government's policies and whatever the policies of the Opposition, would it not be wise for the Government to set out their views in a White Paper so that the matter can be adequately discussed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we never fail to have opportunities to discuss these subjects, but surely actions speak louder than words and we have had a great deal of action over the course of the past few years.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, could the Minister confirm to the House that in reply to an earlier question he did not mean to say that government policy was to promote the Government but to promote industry? Do the Government agree that one of the purposes of issuing a White Paper is to inform not only Parliament but the public at large, and in this case British industrialists, about what the Government's policy is? Would not that be a beneficial thing to do?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if I made a slip of the tongue earlier, I apologise. Naturally, government are there to promote industry and the needs of industry. We are particularly concerned to promote competitive industry. That has been the thrust of our policies and industry is in no doubt of it.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, as a second-to-none champion of the importance of manufacturing industry and as someone who greatly admires the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in his campaign, may I ask the Government to take note of the fact that there have been many admirable statements of their policy in speeches by my right honourable friends the President of the Board of Trade, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others which have clearly set out a very good government policy towards industry? Why is insufficient notice taken of those admirable statements?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Opposition would do well to read in closer detail many of the statements that are made and to recognise the success that they have produced.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one can only listen with a sense of incredulity to a Minister who, after his Government have been in office for 14 years, tries in some way to blame a Labour Government and then, when some of his noble friends criticise his Government, tries to shuffle off the responsibility onto industry and to claim implicitly that this Government have no responsibility when in point of fact it is this Government who have practically destroyed our industrial base and left millions of people unemployed? I do not know how Ministers have the brass neck to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Not me, guv; it's somebody else".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am one of the Members of this House who has a great deal of difficulty remembering the last Labour Government—and I hope that that continues for a long time. The alternative to what the noble Lord proposes is to go back to the days
1358
when the Government not only controlled but owned British industry. That was a disastrous experiment. This surely is the better way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister remember, or can he look up, the balance of payments at that time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a question about the balance of payments. He should recognise that our exports are now at a record level.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister a helpful question just to get him off the hook. Why does he think that at the recent CBI conference the Leader of the Labour Party, John Smith, not only received a warm welcome but nearly got the only standing ovation of that week, yet when the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment addressed the CBI, they all went out for a cup of tea? What happened?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am certain that if the CBI conference had taken place after the latest Budget the roles would have been reversed.

British Forces Equipment Exhibitions
3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will invite to purchase at British forces equipment exhibitions only representatives of countries which are not subject to United Nations embargoes and which agree that their presence does not need to be concealed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, British forces equipment exhibitions enable a wide range of British defence equipment to be shown to potential customers. Invitations to attend are issued on a confidential basis. However, the display of a particular item does not mean that we would be prepared to agree its sale to all the countries invited.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in that case, why do the Government wish to conceal who is being invited? If invitations were issued only to those people who had no reason to be there secretly there would be no problem. I was told when I asked for a list of those going that I could not have a list because some of the people who were going did not want anyone else to know that they were there. Are not the Government deceiving not just the people of their own country but the world community? Will the Minister tell us if there is any reason why there should be any secrecy about this matter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government have no intention of deceiving anyone. It has been the consistent practice of successive Administrations not to reveal details of the invitations issued. Those invitations are issued on a confidential basis. We believe that it would be a breach of trust to disclose the details.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—he may take credit from the fact—that the 16 countries which were blacklisted by the United Nations, the European Council of Ministers and ourselves were not among the 64 countries invited to attend the last combined RN and Army exhibition at Aldershot? Does he agree with me that defence equipment exhibitions, including the Farnborough Airshow and overseas exhibitions, such as SATORY in France and DEFENDORY in Greece, are vital showcases for our industries? Therefore, will he ensure that in future the attendance list at those exhibitions is kept as open as security will allow? The whole question of whether an export licence can be given can then be considered at a later date.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that the important part of this general question is that of export licences. I am delighted that he has given me the opportunity to make it clear that we do not sell to any countries which are subject to international arms embargoes. In addition, harking back to the previous Question about manufacturing industry, the importance of defence-related manufacturing industry to our country is great.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in that case, why does the Minister not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, that the list of invitees to those exhibitions should be properly published? If we are not going to sell to those who are on an embargo list, we are not going to sell to them. Why not make the whole thing public as the open government White Paper would persuade us should be the case? Can we further assume that Iraq will not be invited to future exhibitions?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as to the last part of the noble Lord's question, he is probably aware that Iraq is subject to an international arms embargo and therefore falls within the answer that I gave to my noble friend. As to the first part of his question, as I said in my first supplementary answer, it has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose such information. It is confidential, and we believe that that is the way to keep it. If, of course, an order from an overseas country is lodged, such orders often receive considerable publicity in this country as we and the companies involved wish to boast of their achievements in winning those orders.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the House will welcome the fact that we do not supply to countries that are prohibited under international arms embargoes. But will the Minister confirm that, apart from the international obligations which have been mentioned, our Government's guidelines are firm, and that we will not supply arms to countries which practise terrorism or which have a long record of abuse of human rights?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I restate the point I made earlier, that we do not sell to countries subject to any international arms embargo. So far as concerns human rights, when we look at the possibility of an export licence, they are scrutinised carefully. If we believe that any of the equipment for which an export
1360
licence is being sought is likely to be used for repressive purposes against the civilian population, that application would be rejected.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as we are signatories to three different sets of arms control guidelines—those promulgated by the United Nations Security Council, and the CSCE and the Council of Europe—will the Minister consider the desirability of harmonising those three sets of guidelines, only two of which refer to human rights considerations, and of calling an international conference of those engaged in this trade, to ensure that there is no competition among them, so that one country refusing to sell arms to a country that violates human rights, as in the case of American sales of the F.16 to Indonesia, is not replaced by supply by another less scrupulous country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are responsible for what we do. I used the words "international arms embargoes" in the plural to cover the different sources of the embargoes mentioned by the noble Lord. I reiterate that, when we look at individual export licences, we take into account the human rights position in the country in question and the possible use to which the equipment might be put.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the assurance that if these are guidelines—I take it that we may take his word on this—those guidelines will under no circumstances be changed, or modified slightly, without Parliament being informed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I presume that when the noble Lord speaks of guidelines he means the international arms embargoes I have made it as clear as I can, now, I believe, for the third or fourth time, that we would not sell to countries subject to those embargoes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I mean the Government's own guidelines.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, given that the reputation of British weapons systems has been pre-eminent in international circles, at least since the Battle of Agincourt, is it not desirable that we should focus sometimes upon the need to sustain and encourage our defence industries, which have contributed so much to our economy over many decades?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right. As I said earlier, the defence industry forms an important part of our manufacturing base. Defence exports support approximately 145,000 UK jobs. Yarrow shipyard on the Clyde, in an area of high unemployment, recently received a contract from the Malaysian Government to build two frigates there at a value of £400 million. That will secure ernployment in areas which badly need such employment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Ironside pointed out an inconsistency in the Government's position? Is it not the case that an invitation to buy does not mean a

1361
decision to sell? In that case, what reason is there for concealing those who are coming to buy? An open list of those who are invited would, I suggest, avoid suspicion on the one hand and inconsistency on the other.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not suppose that there is much that I can say to allay the suspicions which the noble Lord has about most defence matters. I repeat what I said. We believe that revealing the details of overseas visitors and representatives of countries visiting those exhibitions may be regarded by them as prejudicial to their national interest. We believe that that is the important point. We then have the security of the export licence to ensure that our weapons sales do not fall into the hands of those who are likely to use them in a repressive way.

Business
3.9 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the joint declaration between the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister."

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Falkland Islands: Investigation
3.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to call attention to the purpose and continuance of the Falklands investigation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion for debate was introduced at Question Time in your Lordships' House on 6th December by my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. There are two fundamental factors which govern the rules of war and their incidence under the Geneva Convention and our own domestic law as to murder on the battlefield. The first is the actual situation on the battlefield, about which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, will speak. He has walked that battlefield. The second factor is the true perspective in which the mutation of moral values in such a situation on the battlefield ought to be perceived. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford proposes to speak on that issue.
I wish at the outset to seek the indulgence of your Lordships so that a little extra time may be given only to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. His contribution is of prime and pivotal importance.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I extend a warm welcome to our maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham.
It is always said that one should start by stating one's objective. The object of tabling this Motion is to suggest that the investigation serves no useful purpose whatever and should be discontinued. Your Lordships may believe that it is also of importance to consider how, why and when the investigation was set up and, indeed, for what purpose.
As appears from the Official Report of 6th December, information given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor goes some of the way but not all of the way. The purpose, so it was said, was to maintain the rules of international law under the Geneva Convention. However, no complaint had been received from the Government of Argentina or from any international body. We were told that the investigation was set up because certain allegations were made in Excursion to Hell, which was published in 1991. The investigations were set up by the Secretary of State for Defence in August 1992. He referred those allegations to the Crown Prosecution Service, which concluded that an investigation was warranted and referred the conduct of the investigations to the Metropolitan Police. That we all know now.
On 6th December my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor also informed your Lordships that the ultimate decision as to whether to charge these men with murder on the battlefield will be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the surveillance of the Attorney-General and that it cannot be said when such decisions will be taken.
We know—not from what was said on 6th December—that no complaint whatever was made at the time of the Falklands campaign and that no complaint has been made to the commanding officer, who even as yet has not been interviewed. We have no satisfactory answers to the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Strabolgi, on 6th December as to the substance of the allegations, if otherwise than in that book, and why acts committed on active service are not dealt with by the services in the usual way.
Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who speaks in your Lordships' House on behalf of the Attorney-General, the Judge Advocate General and the Crown Prosecution Service, will confirm two points. The first is that neither the Attorney-General nor the Judge Advocate General were consulted by the Secretary of State for Defence before setting up this investigation. The second is that the Attorney-General has not as yet been consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service; that is, neither before nor since the matter was referred to the Metropolitan Police.
I ask those questions because we are entitled to know the answers. The investigation casts a sombre shadow of shame on the honour of our armed forces. It is perhaps fortunate that the first debate should ensue in your Lordships' House where we have the benefit of the Cross-Benches and the Bishops' Bench. Therefore, in the exercise of our advisory role, contributions from all sides of your Lordships' House may be put at the

1363
disposal of the Government and the Attorney-General so that, on the advice of the Attorney-General in his semi-judicial role, these investigations may be ended.
In tendering such advice, Mr. Attorney-General will no doubt consider the actual situation on the battlefield, which is where one always starts; the reliability of the evidence which has been assembled; whether in truth any question of the maintenance of the rule of international law arises; whether he will consider our own domestic law as to lawful killing in the heat of war and in the actual exercise of war; and whether the investigation should continue to gather evidence of conduct on the battlefield to establish whether these men should be charged with murder in a series of state trials some 12 years after the event. Mr. Attorney-General will also consider the likelihood of a conviction for murder at the hands of a British jury. He will also consider the overriding public interest, which takes into account the moral mutation point, as to whether this investigation should continue. If so minded, he may also take into account some of the horrors of that "dirty war": the brutal treatment of the conscripts; the devilish contrivance of those lethal booby-traps which beggar belief; and the sham surrender under a white flag when they advanced to open fire on our men.
The author of that book, whose objectivity is open to question, gives an account of what an anonymous member of our armed services told him about an incident on the battle-field when he killed a member of the enemy forces who was crawling towards his foxhole, pinned down by sniper fire. Any of those men crawling towards that foxhole could have tossed in a hand-grenade. One does not have to be very bright to realise that.
The author gives another account in which the same anonymous person saw another member of our armed forces, with whom he shared the foxhole under sniper fire, also anonymous, kill other members of the enemy forces. That was at a time when their military duty was to advance and pursue the enemy in retreat on the battlefield. There was no way that they could take prisoners with them.
Are they obliged to take prisoners (at the epicentre of the battle) which would inhibit the due performance of their military duty? Why should they? If those incidents occurred, they occurred under fire on the battlefield before any general surrender and before any ceasefire; before any spare manpower was available to take and guard prisoners; before any individual offer of surrender had been accepted; and before, according to the rules of war, Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention, it was incumbent to accept any offer of surrender.
In neither of those incidents did those men who were killed:
"fall into the power of the enemy"
so as to entitle them to prisoner of war status until release or repatriation. That is not a battlefield situation. With respect to those who think otherwise, such as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—and I am glad to see him in his place—it is simply not understood how, on any objective examination, it could be said that the continuance of the investigation is requisite to maintaining the rule of law.
1364
The rules of war are not always so useful, even if you survive, but they are even less useful when you are dead. On the battlefield, under fire, pursuing an enemy, account must always be taken of sham offers of surrender. On the battlefield, Articles 4 and 5 of the convention cannot apply to confer prisoner of war status. Those offering to surrender in such circumstances have not fallen into "the power of the enemy". Dr. Goodhart, a law don at Caius, writing in The Times, took the view that by waving a white flag, you do not fall into the power of the enemy as you have the right and duty to escape and continue to fight. He wrote:
"If you are killed, that is not murder but war. No duty is owed to an enemy until his offer of surrender has been accepted, and it is sometimes dangerous to do so".
As to our own domestic law, Hale took the view in 1736 that killing in the actual exercise of war would not be murder. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham took a similar view in the case of Howe in 1987 and Lord Goddard took a similar view in the case of Page in 1953.
In the irenic spirit of the exhortation to government to repair that stigma of shame, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, whatever the outcome of the current investigations, one thing must be declared: nothing can diminish the remarkable feats of arms accomplished by the Parachute Regiment in the closing stages of the Falklands War. Nor should we forget the 250 men of the task force who did not return home. Nor should we forget the three islanders who died and the 650 Argentinians who lost their lives. Nor should we forget that 12,000 Argentinian prisoners were returned in strict compliance with the Geneva rules.
I do not believe it appropriate to repeat the detailed allegations of war crimes, or to debate their merits, which were graphically made in the press and in the "World in Action" programme this May. Those are part of the investigation. Allegations against the Argentinians arise out of the circumstances of their surrender at Goose Green, where the sister battalion of No. 3 Battalion won a critical engagement. Allegations against No. 3 Para arise out of its capture of Mount Longdon after the allegations against the Argentinians at Goose Green had become widely known within No. 3 Para. We must not forget that No. 3 Para suffered 23 dead and 35 wounded on Mount Longdon.
It is true but trite to say that things are done in war which could never be accepted in other contexts but war crimes go beyond the normal practices or inevitable cruelties of war. There is a sharp distinction between the killing of enemy troops in the heat of active battle (even if they are trying to surrender) and murder committed after battle on unarmed prisoners of war.
I suggest respectfully that the critical point in the debate is that it is not a matter of discretion for the Government whether to investigate those grave allegations. It is a matter of obligation. The Government have no choice. This country is party to the Geneva Conventions Nos. 1 and 3 of 1949. No. 1 is for the protection of the wounded and the sick in the field; No.

1365
3 is the prisoners of war convention. By Article 13 of that convention, prisoners must be humanely treated. Grave breaches are defined by Article 130 as including:
"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment".
Most important, Article 129 provides in terms that:
"Each High Contracting Party"—
and we are one—
"shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts".
Therefore, it is a matter of obligation and not discretion.
Critics of the investigation have asserted that:
"evidence taken by the police in Argentina from members of the defeated Armed Services must on any basis be regarded as suspect and biased".
I have no doubt that those investigating will consider highly critically evidence from that source when evaluating it; but it cannot be rejected out of hand.
However, it is the evidence of British soldiers which is likely to be crucial in that investigation. The passage of time—now coming on for 12 years—as well as the availability and willingness of witnesses to testify, are also relevant. However, what the "World in Action" programme signalled is that there is evidence in support of the allegations from within No. 3 Para itself.
Further, on that programme, General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, a former colonel-commandant of the Parachute Regiment, said that the only way to carry such an investigation forward is to have,
"professional detectives go in to the matter".
He continued to say:
"Wars are fought by soldiers and on the battlefield they engage in combat. That is one thing. They do not behave like savages and turn upon unarmed people which is the substance of this allegation and kill them".
Now that the allegations have been made, they must surely be investigated in the interests of the men concerned. It is to be hoped that such allegations will be put to rest. If the evidence is sufficiently strong for a prosecution to go ahead according to our ordinary standards, then the honour and integrity of the British Army, as well as fidelity to our international obligations, require that we do not shrink from our duty.
I should like to add only one comment. Fairness also surely requires that the investigation be conducted expeditiously. When he replies to the debate, I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will feel able to inform your Lordships' House for how long the investigation has been going on; the expenditure incurred on it; the resources devoted to it; and, above all, when it is anticipated that the report on the investigations will be completed and submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Newspaper reports suggest that that stage is now imminent. There is a widespread feeling in the country that the matter has dragged on long enough and that the time for decision has now surely come.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate such an important matter. I believe that most noble Lords would agree that the British Army has an enviable reputation as
1366
regards its discipline and conduct in peace and war. Wellington's Army in the Peninsula may have occasionally got off the leash; and over the years there have undoubtedly been other incidents in which the highest standards have temporarily lapsed. But, in general terms and certainly in recent times, the British soldier has demonstrated again and again that he not only acquits himself with honour but that he has a capacity for compassion for those whom he has defeated, particularly the wounded, who need succour and attention when the battle has passed on. Certainly, as one who served so long in the British Army and, indeed, was its professional head during the Falklands campaign, I am very jealous of that reputation for honour and decency and would not wish innuendo and allegations, however unreliable, to go so unchecked that that reputation might become tarnished by default.
However, those of us in your Lordships' House who have had significant first-hand experience of battle know only too well that the actual battlefield is an inherently brutal place, where absolute moral values are sometimes difficult to pinpoint and where men—fundamentally decent men—not infrequently find themselves impelled or obliged to do things about which they may afterwards feel uncomfortable or even ashamed—war, at best, being only the lesser of two or more evils.
In such circumstances, there are endless opportunities for misunderstanding and for doing things spontaneously which one would not have considered doing in the cold light of day. An enemy may give the impression that he is about to surrender, yet when you drop your guard that same enemy, or another, may open fire and kill comrades in arms. A close friend may be killed or seriously wounded right beside you, and the compulsion for revenge can be very strong. On the rugby field such an instant reflex might bring a penalty or even dismissal from the field, but on the battlefield the consequences of such a reaction would be infinitely more serious. The steadier the discipline and the greater the fire control, the less likely these things are to happen. That is why, because of our traditions and regimental system, even accusations of unreasonable conduct are seldom made. But certain individuals are, by nature, more trigger-happy and nervous under pressure than others; and fighting at close quarters in a war is not an exact science or a cool and calculated business. Those who have not experienced it can have no idea of the pressures involved.
However, I should like to make it clear that what I have said applies only to the actual battlefield—and to the close combat phase. That is why, in the eyes of experienced people, there has always been a clear distinction between actions which may be attributed to an excess of aggression, or even an involuntary lapse of self-control in the heat of battle, when the adrenalin is running and the blood is up, and war crimes, whether they involve murder, torture or some other form of grievous abuse, the difference being that the latter offence is a calculated act, carried out when the enemy have not only offered their surrender but have been properly accepted (as they should be whenever possible) into the protection of the victor or occupier, who would

1367
be in complete control of the situation and of those in his care and thus able to provide all the safeguards demanded by the Geneva Convention.
Against that background, I believe that there are points related to the police investigation which merit the attention of your Lordships' House. As noble Lords will realise, the investigation relating to the very serious charge of murder—that is, in the context of the campaign, a war crime—was undertaken only after a lapse of 10 years because certain allegations had been made in a rather lurid and sensational book by a retired and possibly disaffected member of the 3rd Parachute Battalion.
However, if one goes back to the source of the allegation (on pages 189 and 190 of the book Excursion to Hell) two vital factors stick out a mile. The first is that the allegations are completely hearsay. It is not an eye-witness account. In fact, the author—who is not averse to embellishing with gory details—neither claims to have seen, nor at the time heard, anything which could be remotely described as a war crime. It was only two to three months later, when back in Aldershot while waiting in a pay office, that he claims he met an anonymous soldier, himself badly wounded and about to be discharged, who told him that yet another unnamed soldier had in the very middle of the battle pushed Argentine soldiers over a ridge at the back of his position and opened fire on them. Talk about, "I knew a man who knew a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales": I should have thought that any defence counsel would have a field day with such unreliable evidence.
The second point is that whatever happened—if it did happen—occurred at the very epicentre of the battle, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out and as the book admits. This was not the streets of Belfast; it was a bitter close-quarter battle in a proper war, just like Ypres, Gallipoli, Cassino or Imphal. The parachutists were in foxholes on the objective. They had been under observed mortar and artillery fire for the preceding 24 hours and there was direct shooting and sniper fire all around them. Men had been killed at point-blank range. The platoon sergeant had to crawl on his stomach because of the crossfire to get into the foxhole to issue a few breathless orders. The Argentine soldiers had got themselves into the same foxhole as a result of an abortive counter-attack in which other Argentine soldiers had been killed. In the book's hearsay account, there was no white flag, no formal surrender and no formal acceptance of that surrender; the whole area was in a state of flux in which at any moment any of the participants might have been killed.
No doubt Ministers, or for that matter Law Officers, with little or no knowledge of the face of battle might have hoped that they themselves would have behaved differently and offered any Argentines around tea and sympathy. We might all have hoped that. But, sadly, such paragons of virtue might have felt a bit out of place at the height of the Mount Longdon battle—a desperate place if I have ever seen one—in which, as we have heard, 23 paratroopers had already been killed and about another 40 wounded.
1368
In any case, that is not the scenario or the conditions in which accusations of war crimes and murder can be anything but a cruel joke. Even the investigating officers must have been out of their depth in trying to picture what was happening at the time. That makes it all the more extraordinary that in the whole investigation, despite rushing off to elicit some response from the Argentines, no one has thought it necessary to interview the commanding officer.
I would submit that, although I am as anxious as anyone to preserve the good name and honour of the British Army, the general unreliability of the evidence; the scenario at the epicentre of a brutal battle, with the pressures of combat all around; and the time lapse before any accusations were first made, let alone investigated, all add up to the fact that an investigation of this weight should never have been undertaken, and if it lies in the power of the Attorney-General to do so, he should stop it now. He should certainly not allow it to result in a prosecution which, when all the facts and background are exposed, I am confident would fail. But not before it had done great harm to the reputation and morale of the British armed forces who, in general terms, and as far as the conditions allowed, conducted the Falklands campaign with decency and compassion, as well, of course, with conspicuous and brilliant success, for which the whole country has the greatest cause to be grateful.

Northern Ireland: Joint Declaration
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the Joint Declaration by the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister.
"As the House will be aware, the Taoiseach and I agreed a Joint Declaration this morning. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I know that the whole House will want to hear what lay behind this declaration, and what it may mean for the future.
"For the past 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered levels of violence that any civilised community would find intolerable. No community, and especially no part of the United Kingdom, should have to endure the murder and destruction that have afflicted the Province. That is why successive British governments have sought to find a solution to these terrible problems.
"We must care as much about violence in Northern Ireland as about violence in any other part of the Union. When the Taoiseach and I met at Downing Street two years ago, we both agreed on the need to work together to try to bring about peace in both Northern Ireland and in the Republic. We were both well aware of the pitfalls and dangers which

1369
have wrecked so many previous attempts. But we both knew that, after 25 years of killing, we had to make it our personal priority both to seek a permanent end to violence and to establish the basis for a comprehensive and lasting political settlement.
"The declaration we have agreed today shows the joint commitment of the two Governments: for peace and democracy, and against violence. Its objective is to set a framework for peace. A framework which reflects our responsibilities to both communities, in a way that is fully compatible with the undertakings we have both given and with the objectives of the talks process.
"Copies of the Joint Declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I urge all honourable Members to read it carefully. It deserves careful study. It has required detailed and painstaking negotiations between the two Governments. It addresses the concerns of both sides of the community. And it is totally consistent with the principles which this Government have repeatedly confirmed to the House.
"It may help the House if I set out the main elements of the declaration. I will where possible quote directly from the text of the declaration, so there can be no misunderstanding about what it says.
"First of all, paragraph 2 expressly reaffirms the British Government's commitment to Northern Ireland's statutory constitutional guarantee. This guarantees that for so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom, the Government will uphold their right to do so. That pledge is rock solid.
"This is set out most clearly in paragraph 4, which reaffirms that the British Government will:
"uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland."
"Later in that paragraph the British Government agree:
"that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish."
"This is a crucial sentence, and one about which there has been much misleading speculation. So let me repeat that it says that a move to a united Ireland could only take place,
"by agreement between the two parts respectively"
and,
"on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South".
"This fully protects the position of the majority in Northern Ireland, and means that change could only come about with their consent.
"In line with previous undertakings, the British Government also reaffirm that, if a future majority in Northern Ireland desires a united Ireland, we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring that about.
"For his part, the Taoiseach accepts in Paragraph 5 that:
"it would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland in the absence of the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland."
1370
"And later in the same paragraph, that,
"the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland."
"These are important commitments by the Taoiseach, which I know will be widely welcomed in this House. The House will also welcome, in paragraph 7, the Taoiseach's confirmation that, in the event of an overall settlement of the talks process,
"the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland."
"The Joint Declaration fully backs the three-strand talks process involving the main constitutional parties and the two governments. It says that it is the two governments' aim,
"to foster agreement and reconciliation, leading to a new political framework founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island, and between these islands."
"I believe the passages I have quoted, and the other language in the Joint Declaration, set out a clear framework under which differences can be negotiated and resolved exclusively by peaceful political means. But that can only come about if the men of violence end the killing and commit themselves to the democratic process. The Joint Declaration sets out the way in which this can be brought about.
"Paragraph 10 says that both governments,
"reiterate that the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence. They confirm that, in these circumstances, democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process, are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the governments and the political parties on the way ahead."
"Let me make it plain on behalf of the British Government what that undertaking means. If there is a permanent end to violence and if Sinn Fein commit themselves to the democratic process, then we will be ready to enter into preliminary exploratory dialogue with them within three months. But, first, they must end violence for good.
"I understand the fears and concerns of Unionists about the prospects of the British Government entering into talks with Sinn Fein. This period has been a worrying and uncertain time for them. Although they have the primary interest in seeing an end to violence, they are rightly concerned lest this be achieved by selling out the fundamental constitutional principles which this Government have always upheld. If they fear that, they should be reassured by this declaration. It reaffirms the constitutional guarantee in the clearest possible terms. And the Taoiseach himself fully accepts the principle that any constitutional change could only come about with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland.
"In summary, let me make it clear what is in this declaration and what is not. What is in the declaration is a renewed commitment by the British Government to Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee; an acknowledgement by the Taoiseach that a united Ireland could only be brought about with the consent

1371
of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland; a willingness by the Taoiseach to make changes in the Irish constitution if an overall settlement can be reached; a confirmation that if Sinn Fein renounce violence they will be able to participate in future democratic discussions.
"What is not in this declaration is any suggestion that the British Government should join the ranks of the persuaders of the 'value' or 'legitimacy' of a united Ireland. That is not there. Nor is there any suggestion that the future status of Northern Ireland should be decided by a single act of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole. That is not there either. Nor is there any timetable for constitutional change, or any arrangements for joint authority over Northern Ireland.
"In sum, the declaration provides that it is—and must be —for the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future.
"All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will want to study this document very carefully. I would like today to extend an offer to meet each of the parties regularly in the future, so that I can hear at first hand their concerns and ambitions and can explain to them the British Government's position. If we can work together to quell ancient fears and suspicions then we can help build a better future for Northern Ireland.
"In conclusion, I have made clear that, if they renounce violence, the way is now open for Sinn Fein to join in legitimate constitutional dialogue. That is a political route that they now have no excuse not to follow.
"That is the opportunity offered by this Joint Declaration, and it has been obtained without compromising any of the constitutional principles which this government have consistently espoused.
"The onus is now on Sinn Fein to take advantage of this opportunity. I urge them to do so".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. The whole House will recognise that this is a Statement of great importance. We shall wish to study it in detail. The declaration is distinctly wordy in nature but important in context. Since I suspect that in Northern Ireland at least every word will be weighed, every comma will be looked at and every jot and every tittle will be subject to deep analysis, we shall also wish to examine it.
I should like to make two preliminary comments. First, on this side of the House we welcome the fact that the two Prime Ministers and the two Governments have been able to produce this declaration. Secondly, both Governments, and both Prime Ministers in particular, deserve our congratulations upon the amount of work that they have put into it, the efforts they have made and their courage in coming forward with this declaration.
1372
Obviously there are a large number of questions which one would wish to raise, but perhaps this is not the occasion on which to go into the matter in great detail. This is a first step. It is no more than that. It does not bring peace to this unhappy part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, it may bring the prospects of peace a little nearer. One may be able to say that without this declaration the prospects of peace would have been pushed further back. Therefore, recognising the Statement for what it is, we should all welcome it enthusiastically.
Having said that, the important issue now is how the Government see the next steps. I have looked at the joint declaration in the time available. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Leader of the House could confirm that, as set out in paragraph 11 of the document, in so far as concerns the Irish Government it is envisaged that there should be a forum for peace and reconciliation:
"to make recommendations on ways in which agreement and trust between both traditions in Ireland can be promoted and established".
Is it suggested that the British Government and the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland should attach themselves to that forum for peace and reconciliation, or is it envisaged that on our side there should be negotiations parallel to those which are taking place in Ireland itself?
Secondly, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm what is in the Prime Minister's Statement but not in the declaration, namely, that if there is a declaration by the IRA of a permanent ending to violence and no violence occurs over a period of three months, exploratory talks will take place between the British Government and the IRA? That is how I read the Prime Minister's Statement, and I should be: grateful for confirmation that that is the intention.
Thirdly, can the noble Lord tell the House anything about the reaction of the Unionist parties and the Protestant community in Northern Ireland to this development? I gather that there has already been a violent reaction, in the verbal sense, by Dr. Paisley outside No. 10 Downing Street this morning. I do not know whether the Government have had any reaction from the official Unionist parties, but the House will be grateful to know how they see the process continuing.
Finally, I reiterate what I said at the outset. This is a welcome first step. It is very important that both governments and all parties concerned build on it. There is a deep yearning for peace in Northern Ireland. It would be sad indeed if those hopes were dashed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I join the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for reading to us the Statement of his right honourable friend. I too should like, from these Benches, to congratulate the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister on having arrived at this declaration. We know that it was not easy because we read in the newspapers and heard on radio and television how difficult it was. I am sure that it involved a great deal of intricate negotiation. Our congratulations should go equally to Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. Dick Spring, who must have done much of the work in arriving at the declaration and Statement.

1373
The declaration itself, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred, talks about the legacy of history. The noble Lord is surely right to say that in the legacy of British-Irish history, which is not a happy one, every word counts. We can be sure that every word of the declaration has been gone over carefully for its theological and political significance. Therefore, in commenting on it we have to weigh words both for their obvious meaning and for their deeper meaning in this particular context. The document certainly deserves the most careful study.
It is probably fair to say that so long and so fraught a history will not easily be forgotten. It will not be papered over by one declaration, however eloquent. On the other hand, we should recognise that the tone of the declaration is warm and extremely positive. In a situation in which emotion counts for so much, as it does in both Northern Ireland and British-Irish relations, we should welcome the warmth and forward-looking nature of the declaration.
Everything depends on how the declaration is received, in Northern Ireland particularly, and how it is followed up. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify one or two points. First, there is the question of the IRA response, dealt with in paragraph 10 of the declaration, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred. That paragraph indicates that a party which renounces violence and makes clear that it wants to take part in the democratic process could join the dialogue in due course. That was amplified earlier in the press conference by a reference to three months.
I, too, should like to be absolutely clear about that period of three months referred to by the Prime Minister. Is that the period during which the IRA should desist from acts of violence so that it should be taken seriously? Is it a period of three months in which there will be exploratory talks with the IRA to see whether it will desist from violence? Is it the period which follows exploratory talks peacefully, which is the qualifying period for the IRA to enter into dialogue? I should like clarification because, if we seek to lure those people out of the shadows where they skulk into the daylight, it is important that we should be clear what we propose. At the moment it is not altogether clear.
Perhaps I may add a plea to the Government. The factor that slightly depressed me about the Statement is that so much emphasis is put on the IRA. We must get the IRA off centre stage. The IRA is not the PLO. It is not the ANC. It is the violent representative, the violent actor, of a tiny and unrepresentative minority. It must not be allowed to become the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise is to get the Unionist and nationalist people of Northern Ireland to live together in a peaceful and stable way. If we can achieve that, I believe that violence will end.
With regard to the constitutional parties, other noble Lords may share my view that the reaction of Dr. Paisley of the DUP in immediately attacking the declaration tooth and nail before it had been published, before he knew what it said, was extremely discouraging. We must hope that his example is not followed by the official Unionists, and in particular by
1374
Mr. Molyneaux who until now has preserved an extremely statesmanlike approach on which I believe the future of the declaration depends. It depends greatly on the reaction of the official Unionists. We must hope that their competitors and rivals do not provoke them over the next day or two.
I believe that the declaration is extremely sensitive to nationalist opinions and, indeed, in the Taoiseach's words, to nationalists' rights. The declaration states that in any final constitutional arrangements rights will be taken account of. Is it in the Government's mind, and in the mind of the Irish Government, that there should be some Bill of Rights as part of the settlement in Northern Ireland?
The declaration raises this question: what precisely are the next steps? It is the first step but it is by no means the top of the staircase. Will the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries now recognise that they could have an honourable role in reaching peace? Will the nationalist and Unionist people of Northern Ireland recognise that the time has come when they should stop talking unionist to the British Government and nationalist to the IRA but should talk to each other? That is where progress has to be made; and that is where the creative role of the British Government lies. The declaration has certainly raised hope. It allows us to travel hopefully but we are far from having arrived.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for a great deal of what they said. They stressed the importance of the Statement and the need to study it carefully. I am grateful to them for their congratulations to the Prime Minister and to the Taoiseach, and to all those who have worked to reach this point today.
I put it this way. The purpose of the declaration is to provide a framework for peace, stability and reconciliation. It sets out constitutional principles and political realities. It fully addresses the concerns of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland and safeguards their vital interests.
Both noble Lords asked me what I thought was the next step. It seems to me that the Joint Declaration has two objectives: to search for peace; and to reinforce the talks process which both governments have been pursuing since 1991. Peace will make it easier for an overall accommodation to be reached. But it is not a question of achieving peace first; we must have both. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, our objectives are complementary and reinforce each other.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Holme, referred to paragraph 11 of the declaration with regard to the forum. The forum is a body designed to advise the Irish Government. As I understand it, it is not likely to be set up until there is a cessation of violence. The Unionist parties would be eligible to join and take part in the discussions if they wished, but Her Majesty's Government would not. This factor is important. The forum is not a substitute for the talks process.
Both noble Lords raised questions about the position on entering into a dialogue with the IRA. The

1375
Government have made it clear that they would be prepared to enter into a purely exploratory dialogue with the IRA. The Prime Minister said that if a renunciation of violence is made, and sufficiently demonstrated, new doors could open. After three months, preliminary dialogue would, in our view, be possible. Sinn Fein would not be eligible to enter into the talks until the ending of violence had been sufficiently demonstrated.
I should be careful in what I say about the Unionists' reaction because I have no doubt that they will say it for themselves. What I can say is this. The drafting of the declaration is the sole responsibility of the two Governments. The Joint Declaration takes full account of the interests and concerns of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have met with Unionist politicians recently and have taken fully into account the views that they expressed.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about a Bill of Rights, the Government's position is that they have no blueprint for a solution. They want an overall settlement; and they want that settlement to address all the relevant relationships and be one to which all the parties can agree. Such a settlement would need to address the three strands which were referred to in the Statement. However, they have no preconceived notion as to exactly what that settlement will be.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that both Prime Ministers agreed to work together to build a framework of peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland? This joint accord is a major stepping stone towards those objectives. I believe that the Joint Declaration is fair and balanced. I am especially pleased to note that the people of Northern Ireland have had reaffirmed their right freely and democratically to determine their own future.
From the links that have been established, and the talks that have taken place with various parties, in the Government's view what are the prospects of this package bringing all the participants around the table in order to secure that lasting peace and settlement? Has there been any indication of a renunciation of violence from the parties concerned? During the discussions, was the laying down of arms or an amnesty mentioned?
We must be aware that terrorist hawks on both sides may try to shatter the declaration, and the Irish National Liberation Army may well ignore it. But it may well be that there is not enough conceded to the Provisional IRA in the declaration. We shall just have to wait and see; but the onus is now on them. However, for the two governments it is a fresh start and it opens up a new era of understanding on this most intractable Irish problem. I earnestly hope that a forum of peace and reconciliation is established.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the House will have listened to the noble Lord with particular interest and concern in view of his experience. I hope that he is right, although I do not think it is for me to forecast exactly what will happen. As I indicated in a previous answer, the drafting of the Statement is the sole responsibility of
1376
the two governments concerned. It is for others to react to it. There have been no private or secret deals or discussions of any kind behind the scenes. The message of the Joint Declaration is quite clear: there is now no pretext for violence. The violence must stop now and, if it does, both governments have stated that democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods which they have shown they will permanently abide by will be free to participate in that democratic discussion. That is what we urge them all to do.
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, if and when the Government enter into dialogue with Sinn Fein, I ask my noble friend to accept that there can be no confidence in lasting peace unless and until the IRA surrenders the large quantities of arms and Semtex high explosive which it has stored in various places on both sides of the Border.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as I sought to make clear in the previous answer and as the Prime Minister said, we shall be prepared to enter into exploratory dialogue only if there is a renunciation of violence and if it is sufficiently demonstrated that that is the case. That is an important proviso—the renunciation of violence.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we welcome the Statement and appreciate the pressures that will be put on the IRA to renounce violence. However, I am bound to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what pressures will be brought to bear on the so-called Loyalist paramilitary forces, which have done most of the damage in recent times?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, there is nothing in the Statement that justifies violence, from whatever quarter it comes. The message is quite clear: there should be a proper, democratic discussion. That is what the Joint Declaration is all about.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend take from this House—as I am sure he can—the best wishes of us all for the success of the negotiations? But is he able to say why there is no reference in specific terms to the repeal of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution? As he will notice, the words which are held to refer to that are couched in terms which would allow for very simple evasion, if evasion were sought. Can my noble friend further say whether any significance should be read into the words at the foot of page 2 in paragraph 4 of the Joint Declaration? The second part of the sentence refers to a,
"measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine".
Has my noble friend noticed that that does not state that such consent would have to be given separately by the peoples of the Republic of Ireland and the peoples of Northern Ireland? Is there any significance in that?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. He and I have a bond going back a long time. I listened carefully to what he said and I have to say to him that the important protection for those in Northern Ireland is that the Irish

1377
Government confirm that, in the event of an overall settlement, they will put forward and support proposals for changes in their constitution fully to reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. I do not see the one happening without the other. I think that that is the great protection for those people. It is the most important answer I can give to my noble friend.
The Earl of Erne: My Lords, will the Leader of the House pass on our congratulations to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister for his huge efforts towards peace in Northern Ireland? How often have we heard in the past in Northern Ireland that there is no solution? How often have we heard that the troubles in Northern Ireland are at a tolerable level of violence? We have even been told that statistics show that it is safer to live in New York than it is in Northern Ireland, which is little comfort to those who live in the Province. At last we have a Prime Minister who is to be thanked for and congratulated on his efforts in facing the Northern Ireland problem with courage and skill and for using his great powers of negotiation, giving us all hope. I do not wish to ask any questions on the content of the Statement, but I wish to read it and the Joint Declaration with great interest. I look forward to the future with hope.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his comments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, it is an honourable task to search for peace; many of us have tried and failed and I commend what the Government have done. I hope they succeed with this framework in getting talks going. There is a lot of ground to cover and I hope that we do not have a great deal of euphoria here, believing that Statements and Joint Declarations are a sign that we have won the battle. There is a long way to go. However, I commend the Government for what they have done.
With others, particularly the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party, I have been with Members from the Irish Dáil for two days and we have learnt much about their expectations. There is a lot going for the framework, not only in the United Kingdom but in the Republic as well.
I wish to make two brief observations and ask a question. The observations are brief because the points have already been covered. As regards Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution, it is a pity that the statement was not firmer, but my understanding is that it would need a referendum to get the constitution changed. As things are at the moment, any suggested change would not be passed. Other steps are needed before there is any hope of that. No one can know whether that is absolutely true, but that is what I was told in our discussions over the past couple of days.
The other matter I regret is that there is no mention of the Loyalist paramilitaries. Everyone whom I have met in Dublin last week and during the past two days has told me that the amount of money and arms that the
1378
Loyalist paramilitaries have garnered together is large and that support for the paramilitaries is rising in the community as a whole.
My question is this. Nearly 17 years ago I had talks with the IRA about bringing the violence to an end. The problem is guns. The point which was put to me was this. If they hand over their guns, what about the weaponry in the hands of dissident groups and of the Protestant paramilitaries? It will take careful planning to deal with that, and that is the next step. I hope that the Government are putting their minds to it, because without that there is no point in talking about three months, or whatever it is. If that question has not been resolved, then the violence will not stop.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the whole House will have listened very carefully to the noble Lord in view of his former responsibilities. I am sure that he would not want me to pursue in detail some of the points that he made. However, it is not just a question of time. There must also be satisfaction that the parties concerned have genuinely ceased violence and that the necessary steps have been taken.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. For the future, do the Government have in mind the possible usefulness of a fully independent media; and in particular do they still have available to them the services of Sir Ninian Stevens? If he is not available, will they think of finding an equally eminent replacement?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the position as I understand it is that this Statement does not change any arrangements that are at present in force. The Statement is meant to reinforce the talks process. There are no changes other than that. We believe that it will make the talks process that much more likely to be successful.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may stress to the noble Lord the Leader of the House the importance of the point made by my noble friend Lord Holme. The history of repression by the majority in Northern Ireland is very, very important. There is no doubt at all that the minority of Catholics in Northern Ireland are oppressed in jobs, education and housing. Whatever settlement is arrived at, they will be in the minority. Allaying the fears of that minority is very important in an ultimate settlement. Therefore a protection for the rights of minorities needs to be built in to any ultimate solution.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I did not disagree at all with what the noble Lord's noble friend said. What I said was that the Government do not have a blueprint as to exactly how these things will be done. We need to get consent, freely entered into. If a sensible and free agreement is reached, then the British Government will be extremely pleased; that is what they want to achieve—but not on the basis of a British Government blueprint.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say what would happen if in 15 or 20 years' time, as a consequence of the well-known differences in demographic patterns between the two

1379
communities, a situation arose whereby the community most associated with nationalist aspirations came to form 50.01 per cent. of the population, while the community most associated with unionist sentiments fell back to form only 49.99 per cent. of the population? Could the Province at that point be forced into a United Ireland against the passionate wishes of every single member of the unionist community?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have been long enough in politics not to forecast what will happen in the next 15 minutes, let alone in the next 15 years. I can only say to the noble Lord that it is a very interesting question. I suggest that he reads the joint declaration as carefully as I tried to do this morning to see whether he can draw a conclusion from it that gives him any answer to that question. I am not sure that the joint declaration is designed to find solutions that will not be put into operation for 15 years. That is not to say that we do not want to find a lasting and permanent solution. But I hope, without putting any timescale on it, that there will be some progress before 15 years from now.

Falkland Islands: Investigation
4.24 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, in returning to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I recognise that he and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, put before us various legal and military considerations. Perhaps I may try to put forward some moral and social principles. In doing so, I shall not comment on the particular circumstances of the Falklands inquiry. An investigation is taking place; and until we have the results, it seems to me particularly difficult to comment on the particular circumstances.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, please would the right reverend Prelate move nearer to the microphone? It is very difficult to hear. I hope that he does not mind my interrupting him.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I apologise to the House. Not being able to hear me is not a complaint which I normally have.
For those Members who could not hear me, I was saying that I wanted to put forward some social and moral principles, but that in so doing I would not wish to speak to the particular circumstances of the Falklands inquiry because an investigation is taking place. Until we have the results, I would rather stick to the general principles, which may indeed have some bearing on the particular matters to which previous speakers have referred.
First, if any members of Her Majesty's Forces behave in cold blood in a way that is contrary to the Geneva conventions, such action should not be condoned. I am sure that military authorities and commanders would consider such actions to be a breach of discipline and would take appropriate action. There are codes of conduct which apply to Her Majesty's forces, including those on active service. We rightly
1380
expect high standards. Indeed, there are moral imperatives which take us beyond any military codes. I do not believe that senior officers would expect anything less than high standards; nor do I think that they would judge it to be in their interest, or in the interest of the nation as a whole, to cover up misconduct. We have seen the action of some soldiers in Northern Ireland rigorously investigated. That is right—primarily because it is in accordance with high moral standards; but it is also an important reassurance to society and to the nation as a whole that such high standards are expected and required in all circumstances.
Secondly, although we should require those high moral standards in the armed services as in other professions, we must beware of scapegoating. Where society is cohesive, and has clearly acknowledged and practised moral standards, there is a natural expectation that those standards will automatically apply in every profession and discipline. Where, on the other hand, society is weak, unsure of its own cohesion and subconsciously anxious that its own general standards are slipping, it is easy for society to look for scapegoats, and to require higher standards of others than society itself feels able to attain. A weak and unsure society grabs at such opportunities to blame others in order to divert attention away from itself. That "feel good factor" protects us from our own sense of weakness and failure and appears to allow us to do that on high moral ground. I have to say that we see such signs in our own society. Currently, for instance, demands are being made for strict moral behaviour on the part of public figures. That is appropriate—but not if it is merely expecting of others standards of behaviour which we ourselves, and society as a whole, do not and cannot attain.
Again, there are, currently, expectations that teachers should instruct the young in moral behaviour, telling them what is right and what is wrong and teaching them family values. That is undoubtedly appropriate, but not if it is just projecting onto teachers the responsibilities that we as parents and as a society have failed to fulfil. We are right to expect and require high moral standards, but that should be as the result of our own individual and corporate acceptance of such standards, not as a substitute for them.
I suggest therefore that though we should expect high standards of discipline and behaviour in the armed services, that should be a part of our own acceptance of such standards, and not as a substitute for them. We should not use the Army, or anyone else, as scapegoats.
Thirdly, if we train soldiers to face danger and death, and induce aggression in them to make them swift, decisive and effective in the heat of battle, then we should be expecting too much if at the same time we demanded that they engage in cool, detached thinking at critical moments. If they act irresponsibly in cold blood, there is no excuse. If they respond in hot blood, and in the heat of battle, we have to recognise that we have deliberately trained them to be aggressive, to get the adrenaline moving and to strike while the iron is hot. If that heat causes them to boil over, we recognise that it is we, as a society, who have fuelled the flames. We do

1381
not and cannot condone cold homicide, but we have to be much more considerate and understanding when people are under provocation.
My final point relates to the way we live in a society where our past seems able to hide for a time and then ambush us without warning. Should we not be concerned when events which can pass virtually unnoticed at the time can be brought forward years later as though they were fresh and recent? We must readily acknowledge that a crime remains a crime, whether it was committed yesterday or 10 years ago. There is no escape from that. We cannot "unhappen" the past. Yet is it right that any rumour, any anonymous comment or any published allegation about the past can be used to call in question people of today? If so, a grave responsibility lies in the hands of the publishing world.
I repeat that we cannot and do not condone criminal behaviour which took place now or even some years ago. But surely we do not want a society in which there is a continuing fear that any and every misjudgment of the past can be surreptitiously raked up to destroy the present. We should be free to make moral sense of today and not be haunted by yesterday.
The debate raises issues of concern about some particular events. I do not have the knowledge or information to comment on them. I have done no more than try to indicate some of the general moral principles which underpin our life as a society. I suggest that we need to keep those general principles in our mind as we consider the particular matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to note that this debate will now continue until 21 minutes past six o'clock.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I do not wish to take up time, although I instinctively put down my name to speak in this debate and could have expected normally to go on for some time. Having raised the matter twice in your Lordships' House—I believe it was in April this year and again the other day—and having had interesting and important correspondence with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, as well as having had a great weight of mail on the subject, I feel that it would be greedy and unfair to take up time in a limited debate by speaking yet again. After the crystal clear analysis of the legal aspects given by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I have nothing to add on that side; and after the brilliant contribution of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, which I, as a seven-year veteran of the last world war, found absolutely stirring, I can add little that would warrant delaying other speakers.
I should like to make one point to underline some words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He described very well the turbulent situation that arises during an engagement. It may be useful to enlarge upon that because I have drawn a conclusion from it. Such a turbulent situation is not like a football match which stops when the whistle blows and has a referee. One has
1382
no idea how long the situation will last or what the outcome will be. It is all chaos. Everyone is doing their best to achieve their objective, whatever it may be. But most of the time going through one's mind is the realisation that one is several thousand miles from home, one may never see one's family again, never see the English countryside again or one's home. There is no moment at which a man thinks, "I must not do that because it is against the rules". In the heat of such a situation it is completely impossible to take prisoners or to know whether they intend to give themselves up. When they have given themselves up, it is quite impossible to know whether they will be quiet. In numerous battles, as all people of my age must know, people get away and start all over again. I certainly would.
I should like to put the question to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In the light of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, and what so many of my generation have experienced, I question whether the Director of Public Prosecutions (admirable though she or any Director of Public Prosecutions may be) and the investigators—none of whom knows anything about these matters or have had any experience of them—are in a position to make a judgment and a decision as a result of the investigation. That is an aspect of the matter which we might ask my noble and learned friend to look at and on which the Government might see a way of intervening.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for giving us the opportunity briefly to debate this very important issue. I also apologise to him and to the House; because of the intervention of the very important Statement on Northern Ireland, I shall probably not be able to stay to the end of the debate. In that context, I am grateful for the precise indication that we shall finish at 21 minutes past six o'clock. I may have to have left your Lordships' House at that time. I apologise for that, and hope that it will not be regarded as discourteous. I resisted the temptation to remove my name from the List of Speakers because this is such an important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that this investigation serves no purpose and should be discontinued. I am in full agreement with the noble Lord. On first impression it beggars the imagination that the conduct of soldiers under fire in combat should be equated with a war crime. To me it is totally incomprehensible. We heard, for example, about a soldier shooting someone who was crawling towards his foxhole. When I was commanding troops under combat conditions, if a soldier under my command had not shot somebody crawling towards his foxhole, he would have been very severely disciplined.
There may be a slight philosophical problem about the use of force. We have been accustomed to hearing, in conditions of internal security and riot control, about the principle of the use of minimum force and all that goes with it. People forget that when one is in combat,

1383
one uses the maximum force at one's disposal. Otherwise, one is unlikely to arrive at a successful conclusion.
It seems to me that war crimes is a concept properly applied to circumstances such as occurred at Belsen, Dachau, the Katyn Forest, and the killing fields of Cambodia, but not to soldiers in close combat. That is a situation in which the concept of war crimes simply does not apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in his very thoughtful approach to the debate, mentioned that under international law and convention, the wounded, the sick and prisoners of war are entitled to certain special treatment. Indeed, they are. But it seems to me that in this investigation what we are considering has nothing to do with either of those situations at all. We are not dealing with the wounded; we are not dealing with the sick and we are not dealing with prisoners of war under the normal understanding of the term. We are dealing with soldiers in combat, some of whom were young soldiers and some who had never been in combat before.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, summed up the situation when he spoke about the atmosphere of the battlefield. No one who has not had experience of the battlefield and of being shot at, knowing that the man opposite is trying to kill you, can possibly understand the kind of pressures that soldiers are under in that kind of situation.
Sir John Hackett, a noted military historian and a gallant military officer, once referred to the unlimited liability —the unlimited liability being that when a soldier enters into combat his liability is unlimited. What he puts on the line is not his reputation or his integrity; it is his life. It is the unlimited liability. We all know the great joke of the football manager who said that the cup final is not a matter of life and death; it is more important than that. It is a good joke; but it is not true. There is nothing more important than life and death; and there is nothing more important to a soldier in battle than his life and the possibility of his death. It seems to me—I come back to my first remark—that it beggars the imagination that anyone can suppose that it makes sense now to have an investigation into the performance and behaviour of soldiers confronted with that kind of situation.
For my own part, I do not accept the argument that it is not for the Government and not for Parliament to decide how much further this investigation should go. This investigation is not some kind of natural force; it does not have a life of its own. Someone has directed that it should begin; someone is controlling it as it goes on; and someone somewhere can say that it should stop. I think that someone should say that now.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for putting this matter forward, and for his succinct and brilliant analysis of the issues involved. I also thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for his moving and graphic explanation of a war situation. The House will have been very moved by that explanation.
I want to remind the House that these British troops
1384
were sent 8,000 miles on a hazardous expedition to return to British sovereignty the Falkland Islands, which had been illegally invaded by Galtieri and his fascist junta, and to rescue British citizens who had been mistreated and terrorised by Argentine troops. We should remember that. They did the job brilliantly and efficiently with the minimum loss of life not only to themselves but to the Argentine troops involved as well. Men whom we cheered as heroes 12 years ago are now being accused of war crimes by the very same government who sent them in the first place, and on the flimsiest of evidence from dubious sources.
No international body has called for this investigation. The United Nations has not asked for it. The Argentine Government themselves have not asked for it. Yet it is going ahead. Now we have had the spectacle—I call it that advisedly—of Scotland Yard detectives swanning off to Argentina of all places not merely to gather evidence but to incite former Argentine soldiers into coming forward to accuse British soldiers of ill-treatment of prisoners. Have you ever heard anything like that before? It is frankly a disgrace.
British troops under such circumstances are put in the same category as the Nazi monsters who slaughtered 6 million Jews and others. That is what we are saying—that they are war criminals. How a government—how anyone—can uphold something of that kind I simply do not know. Yet the real war criminals—Galtieri and his fascist junta—have not been brought to book. There is no suggestion that they should be brought to book for their violations of international law and human rights. It is they who must be held responsible for all the deaths and horrors of the Falklands War. Yet they are to escape censure and trial while British troops, doing their duty as instructed by the British Government, are now being harassed by their own Government—by a government which sent them to do a specific job which they did so brilliantly.
Indeed, we had better remember that had it not been for the success of British troops, Galtieri and his henchmen would still be lording it over Argentina—no doubt killing and torturing their political opponents or keeping them in prison without trial. No wonder President Menem is embarrassed by the whole disreputable episode of this war crimes investigation against ordinary British troops. He knows better than anyone else that if Galtieri had won that war he, Menem. would not now be president. He might instead be in prison or even dead. Unlike the British Government, he probably feels a debt of gratitude to the British troops.
There is a further point. Why, before our Ministers sanctioned investigations into allegations against British actions in the heat of battle, did they not insist that allegations against Argentine troops were investigated at the same time? Why was it so special that it was only British troops who should be put under investigation? Ordinary British people and British troops are bewildered by this investigation. What, one may ask, are British troops to do in a future war situation? Are they in the heat of battle to have a debate with themselves as to whether a particular action might lead them to be accused 12 years hence of war crimes? In such circumstances a lot more British soldiers will be dead

1385
while they are considering what they should do. Their own government will have put them into an intolerable position by this war crimes investigation.
I believe that this whole business is an insult to the British troops who were killed and injured doing our dirty work. I say "dirty work" because if the Government had been on the ball the Argentines would never have invaded. It is an affront to British troops who are not only brave but the most efficient—and indeed the most tolerant troops in the world. It has made the British Government a laughing stock. I do not mind them being a laughing stock; but, by implication, they have made the British people a laughing stock, too. That I very much resent.
I believe that the Government should be ashamed of themselves and they should now apologise to all those whom they have put under the stress of suspicion and to the British nation for embarking on such a foolish and damaging escapade. Above all, they should do everything possible to bring the whole sordid business to an end at the earliest possible moment.
4.50. p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I rise with the diffidence felt by every maiden speaker who stands in front of your Lordships, allied to a sense of awe of the history of this place. Perhaps I may first inquire whether it is proper etiquette for a maiden speaker—probably it is not—to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on his forceful and eloquent speech.
I rise with a second sense of diffidence because I come from a generation which is not entitled to wear any medal of any sort. I have not served in any of the fields of conflict in which this country has been involved for many years. If I were a few years older I would have served in the war; if I were younger I might have been in Belfast, the Gulf, the Yemen, in Aden, the Falklands or any one of a number of fields of battle. I do not even have a Coronation medal.
It should also be said that I missed Malaya, where my regiment was involved. Aspects of that campaign have also been commented on in recent years along the lines of today's debate. Much of my service was spent at the Guards' depot which, like Surtees' hunting, was,
"the image of war without its guilt and only five-and-twenty per cent of its danger".
However, I hope I can avoid the naivety and lack of understanding of warfare which has accompanied so much of the writing on this subject and the actions which have been taken. In the preface to one of his books the distinguished military historian, John Keegan, confesses to a "guilty secret". He spent many years at Sandhurst analysing battles to young men who had a far better chance than he of finding out whether what he was saying was true. Because of his innocence of those matters he avoided passing judgment on the behaviour of men under circumstances that he had not had to meet.
That is precisely what those who commissioned the inquiry into alleged war crimes in the Falklands are doing. I am interested in the actions of those who have been investigating the allegations. I reiterate the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and of
1386
the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that General Hugh Pike has never been spoken to on those matters. That may well be the critical point of the allegations. Nobody suggested that Colonel Pike, as he then was, was personally involved in the alleged crimes, and therefore the methods and standards of policing did not find it appropriate that he should be spoken to on the matter.
Neither in the calm of your Lordships' House nor in the court rooms where the allegations will be analysed if charges are brought, is there any possibility of recreating the windswept heights of Mount Longdon or Tumbledown. In war there has never been such a possibility. We rightly regard war crimes as crimes, and some as particularly indefensible, usually because they were carried out in cold blood. There is nothing new about any of that. Henvy V, that paragon of English chivalry, at Agincourt ordered the slaughter of the French prisoners who had been taken to the rear. The fact that his soldiers largely ignored the order was probably due to the fact that they realised one could not get a ransom for a dead 'un, rather than to any feelings of mercy towards their fellow men.
At Agincourt it was fairly clear when the battle began and when it ended. Indeed it was ceremonially announced by the heralds. That is something which is seldom done today. Mount Longdon was a battle that lasted all night. Then for a further 36 hours fighting continued all around and the paras were under fire from the enemy still defending Tumbledown directly across the valley from the Scots Guards who were attacking. As so many noble Lords have said, at such a time it was totally unrealistic to demand the observance of the niceties of the Geneva Convention. They observed the rules of warfare—"Keep your head down and your weapon cleaned bright and slightly oiled".
Even so, the Argentine prisoners were evacuated as soon as possible to save further casualties. In the Falklands it is clear that the conventions were maintained to an astonishing degree in a vicious fight and it is the details of that fact which control the propriety of further and formal investigations. It would seem that those who commissioned the inquiry have been unable to accept the fog of war. I do not believe that anybody has considered or even alleged that there was a Stalag Luft 3 or an Agincourt in the Falklands. Certainly there is evidence to the contrary. When the liner "Canberra" took the prisoners back to the Argentine after the war, P&O presented the Ministry of Defence with a bill for £4,000 for champagne consumed. What is more, all the prisoners were home within a few weeks rather than the 17 years that it took so many to get back from Russia after 1945.
If all mankind was perfect there would never be any allegations of cruelty. But if we were perfect there would be none of the idiocy and bestiality of war. Only in H.G. Wells' Little Wars did six men, meeting four, lose two on each side and march the others to the rear as prisoners. Like so many others, I have only experienced the Little Wars of H.G. Wells. From what we read we know of countless cases where the enemy fought bravely and determinedly until the very moment when they were about to be overwhelmed. It is tempting

1387
for them to think that they will be immediately forgiven when they then raise their hands and look innocent. But it is unrealistic. Only the All Blacks at the back of their opponents' scrum think that they can get away with that—and there is no referee in war.
When things went wrong in the Falklands immediate action was taken. At Goose Green, shortly before the Mount Longdon battle, Argentine prisoners were forced to move unstable napalm—which was of course their own. That was wrong and after an on-the-spot investigation the officers concerned immediately had their knuckles rapped for not having read the Geneva Convention—one has to think of everything in war. The operative word is "immediately"; their knuckles were immediately rapped.
Events can only be judged by the standards and the conditions of the time. The title of this debate is,
"To call attention to the purpose and continuance of the Falklands investigation".
I support the view that, because of its lack of realism and the 11 years which have passed since the events which are in question, the investigation should not continue.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on his absolutely splendid maiden speech. It was humble, amusing and coherent. Though he tells us that he never went to war as a soldier, I do not believe him. I know that he was Director General of SSAFA—the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am sorry about that; that is what the Whips' Office told me—perhaps he ought to be. It is a great pleasure to congratulate someone who makes such a good maiden speech. I cannot remember having heard such a good one for a long time.
I wish to support strongly the Motion of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the points made by most other noble Lords, especially those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I should like to add a perspective to the debate from a naval point of view. In general terms, naval attacks are directed at ships, aircraft and submarines rather than at their crews as individuals. So the sort of situation which is said to have arisen with regard to specific soldiers in the Falklands does not normally occur in sea battles. However, there are circumstances when warship captains or individual sailors may overstep the mark of what is reasonably acceptable in wartime. A well-known example would be of a submarine captain who did not take reasonable steps, when practicable, to see that the crew of a ship that he sunk had a chance of survival.
Rather than generalising, I can give an example of a personal experience rather closer to the subject under discussion. I spent most of World War II serving in ships escorting convoys and seeking to destroy submarines. I had the privilege to assist in the destruction of four submarines. One of them was detected on the surface and rammed. The crew abandoned ship. As the boarding officer I was lowered into a whaler—a pulling and sailing boat—to take my boarding party over to the submarine to capture
1388
confidential signal books and equipment, which, if we had been successful, may have included an Enigma machine. Sadly, we were not successful.
As it happens, the engineer officer of the submarine, after all the rest of the crew had left the boat, set the electric motors to slow astern and opened the sea cocks. Sadly, slow astern for the submarine was faster than my boat crew could row. So after pursuing it for as long as we reasonably could I gave up the chase and turned back to my ship. That meant rowing through the mass of swimming German sailors who were also endeavouring to get to the ship. Many of them appeared to be attempting to overpower us in the boat. Perceiving that they could easily do so and swamp it and have us all swimming, I fired a pistol over their heads to frighten them off. As far as I could see, that had the desired effect and no further action was necessary. The boat was safely brought back to the ship and hoisted on board. We also rescued all the submarine crew.
However, I have a query for your Lordships. Supposing that I had not felt that the German sailors had been sufficiently frightened by the shots over their heads, I would undoubtedly have shot them as individuals. Would that have been justifiable in the circumstances? I believe that it would, but I can think of many people nowadays who would portray it as unjustifiable homicide, especially people who have never been to war.
In terms of the events that we are discussing, a junior sailor could easily several years later, some time in the 1950s, have invented a story which might have incriminated me. That cannot be right. We hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that this story was all hearsay and not direct experience. The Falklands war was a fine feat of arms by all three services, and especially by the soldiers who fought the final battles of which we are now speaking. We must not let its reputation as this country's best feat of arms since the Second World War be tarnished—and we must not let the reputations of its participants be tarnished—by prolonged reference to a bitter money-grubbing book. Too many books these days are clearly written simply to make money. It makes one sick and it does not need support in the form of government action which might make others think that there is anything right about it. The Government must call a halt to this inquiry.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in support of my noble friend to say that that particular paperback has been translated into Spanish and has made an absolute killing in Argentina.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the objective that was so clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, at the start of his speech. I agree and support what has been said by those most qualified to speak about the law on war crimes and by those who have personal experience of the battlefield. I am clearly not alone in questioning whether we are getting the best value from scarce police resources when a number of senior Metropolitan Police

1389
detectives are away for weeks in the South Atlantic rather than at home seeking to resolve many of the serious crimes in and around London.
I should like to confine my remarks to two points which have not yet been touched on but which I think are relevant. First, when considering these very difficult issues, issues about alleged events which were said to have taken place many years previously, should we not adopt a similar principle to that which has been followed when proposals have been made, often after many years, about bravery and other wartime awards and campaign medals?
Over the years since World War II there have been a number of strongly pressed cases: for example, to enhance honours bestowed on some wartime commanders; or to extend the periods of qualification for campaign medals; or to award a special medal for the aircrews of Bomber Command, who sustained a horrifying 55,000 casualties during the bomber offensive against the Nazis. I can well remember Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris expressing to me his anger and frustration that the valour and sacrifice of his bomber crews had not been given any special recognition by the nation.
As recently as 1984, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who was then Mrs. Thatcher and Prime Minister, replied to a letter about a Bomber Command medal stating that, while she appreciated the hardships and risks faced by those who served in Bomber Command, she had to point out that,
"in 1946, the Government of the day decided that no further retrospective awards should be made for wartime service, and successive governments have adhered to that policy".
In this, and in all the cases of which I am aware, the official refusals to vary the original decisions have in effect been based on the argument that those best able to make the right judgments were those who held the responsibility at the time the awards were first considered. To depart from that principle could only serve to raise questions about all awards, when the benefits of hindsight, and sometimes differing emotions about the relevant events, might lead to a variety of new and perhaps inconsistent conclusions.
I believe that we would do well to adopt a similar policy for cases of alleged wrong-doing during past conflicts. If sufficiently serious, they should have been brought to the notice of superiors and considered at the time in the light of all the prevailing circumstances. There seems to me to be something intrinsically wrong and alien to our concepts of fair play to try to return, in cold blood and after many years have passed, to actions which occurred in or around the heat of battle and at a time of great mortal danger. Anything which threatens to undermine the valour and commitment of members of our armed forces to risk all for their country must surely be avoided.
My second concern flows directly from the way that this investigation has apparently been triggered. One does not need to be a very ardent follower of the wiles of conspiracy theory to question how much some authors and publishers may seek, by spicing their products with allegation and innuendo, to encourage
1390
controversy and publicity. One of the outcomes of this current sorry approach to an alleged incident over 11 years ago, particularly if it continues to court, may be to spawn a number of dubious and outrageous publications about the Gulf or Bosnia or Northern Ireland, or anywhere else that we have had our forces on active service.
War, as many of your Lordships have so eloquently said this afternoon, and know far better than I, is a harsh and cruel business in which our servicemen are under orders to fight and to risk their lives. We should be very wary of attempting to judge by other than the perceptions at the time whether wrong may have been committed and must be investigated. If we are to continue to look for volunteers to serve in the armed forces, we must sustain their confidence that military superiors and the politicians who set the objectives to be achieved by force of arms will not be tempted in future years to reopen contemporary investigations. An even-handed approach to acts of valour or, if necessary, to wrong-doing in the prosecution of war would seem reasonable and would be welcomed by servicemen and, I hope, by your Lordships.
5.9 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I should like to re-emphasise a point that has already been made in this debate because I hope that it will attract some notice outside your Lordships' Chamber. The British soldier, airman or sailor is not a thug. We would not win our wars if he was like that. He may have been a pretty tough chap. In the days of Wellington, he may have had to forage and loot, but today he is highly trained, highly skilled and has a self-discipline which I have not seen in any other army in the world. That is the important thing to remember, as is the fact that when a government declare war and send their forces to fight, they are expected to win. They are expected to win because that is what they have been trained for, and with their loyalty and expertise they go about doing that. We do not always win, but we have to start and to go on to win.
I have to say that sniffing around the Ministry of Defence I am greatly perturbed. Within the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence there is organisation second to none, experienced in every type of inquiry that one can think of and courts of inquiry. Within the Ministry of Defence there is the expertise to discover whether what happened happened during the heat of battle or was something more in the nature of a war crime. There are good police investigators inside the MoD; there are judge advocates generals; there are legal departments; there are directors of personnel and adjutant generals, and all sorts of other people tailor-made and experienced to carry out such investigations. They do it frequently, but when I looked at this problem I saw that it was "push to leg"; it was passed off; the buck was passed somewhere else as fast as it could be.
To put it mildly, I am greatly disappointed by the political directorship of this matter; by the attitude of senior civil servants and of the generals, who should not have allowed it to escape from the MoD unless it became obvious that it was something with which they could not cope. What has happened is that the average

1391
officer and man, especially in the Army, has lost a great deal of faith in that organisation. He is not happy. He wonders what will happen to him the next time he fights. So there is a bit of mending to be done there.
Noble Lords may have the advantage over the other place because of our seniority and age. We may understand the heat of battle, active service, war, close quarter battle and hand-to-hand combat better than those in another place. We have a Cabinet. With great respect, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is part of it. Its members have never had their hair parted by a bullet; I hope that they never do. They have been brought up at a time when, apart from one or two, they have done no national service. They have been brought up also with other types of military operations where one has a yellow card in one's pocket and one acts with both—or at least one—arms tied behind one's back. So the whole scene of war is beyond their ken. I hope that they never have to experience it.
I should like to think that the noble and learned Lord could ensure that we have a Cabinet that stands up for and stands by its armed forces. It is pretty good at cutting the numbers in half, but those that are left had better be looked after and supported properly. It has also been reported to me that, since all these great cuts and Options for Change have come about, there has been a dearth of visits by Members of another place to the armed forces. That is sad. This is a time when parliamentarians—I am not talking in a party way—should get about and give confidence to the armed forces. They will be needed. We do not have to look too far outside these shores to know that they will be needed again and again during the lifetime of most noble Lords here today.
I hope—I am not saying this as a criticism; I am trying to be helpful—that MPs will remember this and be seen among the armed forces. They will learn what the heat of battle is when they talk to soldiers, sailors and airmen who have had ships knocked from under them and aircraft blown out of the skies and been wounded in the heat of battle or seen their comrades killed. They would learn a great deal and would then take a different view of the war.
This investigation has troubled me from day one. As I have intimated, it is not being done, in my humble opinion, by those who should do it. Twelve years from the battle, with everything that goes on in an army, navy and air force, it is too late to get to the truth. Like many noble Lords, I am dubious about asking the enemy for its opinion. I have never heard of anything like that before. I am absolutely astounded that a government could even contemplate such action.
Governments of any colour, Members of Parliament of any colour and the young Members of your Lordships' House must understand that when we send our forces to war, battle is different from a slanging match across the two Dispatch Boxes where everyone insults everyone else. I ask the Government to cease at once this farcical investigation.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for so usefully initiating this debate, and to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on his maiden speech which was so amusing. I hope that we shall hear him often.
I should like to make a brief contribution on behalf of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, and, in particular, of the widows, orphans and parents of the men who died in the Falklands. Although I have no personal experience of war, my only brother, who was awarded the Croix de Guerre, was killed in Holland in 1945; my husband was awarded the Military Cross in the war; my son served in the Falklands campaign. I shall never forget standing on the quay at Southampton, waving a Union Jack, while the QE2 steamed slowly out to sea with everyone waving from the deck and the bands playing.
Nobody glorifies war. We are all against it. But sometimes it is necessary. And those of us who do not go out to fight owe a great debt to those who do. So to start muck-raking, as we have been doing over the past year, on the say-so of a second-rate writer out to make a quick buck for himself, seems totally wrong. When the war is over, it is over. It is up to those of us who are left to express our debt to those who fought in it on our behalf, and to honour them, to succour the wounded in body and spirit, and to support the widows and orphans.
I have spoken to some of the widows of No. 3 Para whose husbands fell on Mount Longdon, to the parents of some of our young men who were killed there, and to Mr. Keoghane, chairman of the Falklands Families Association. I should like to quote from a letter received from one of the widows, which may give your Lordships some idea of how this inquiry has affected them.
She writes:
"People don't mean to be unkind … but … some have gloated, some have condemned us, some have simply said, 'Never speak to me again', some have scornfully said, 'Your friends' (referring to my husband and his comrades), some have just looked the other way when they see us. This was all during spring and summer when the media started to say my husband's Regiment were accused of war crimes … It has lost us many friends, raked up many memories, devastated our lives a little more than a bit, made us lose a lot of confidence—why do people believe all they read? I am telling you all these things so you know a little of what it is like but in no way do I want to hurt these people back—it's their ignorance which speaks and it no longer happens as the boys and I stay indoors much of the time and try not to see anyone. So please don't try to make anyone feel ashamed as they have tried to make us feel ashamed, no one else should be put through that. I hope that 3 Para's honour will shine through at the end of the day.
During the last year many who took part in the battle have been interrogated, some to the point of causing extreme, emotional distress by making them relive such a terrible ordeal. The publicity this investigation has created and the media attention which is likely to follow … will cause much heartache for those, both British and Argentinian, who lost loved ones during the battle and be detrimental, not only to the Regiment and those who served in it, but also to the Argentinian survivors as well as the Falkland Islands and its people. It will damage the morale of everything this country believes in.

1393
The 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment fought a long and bloody battle in which soldiers from both sides died honourably and many were horribly wounded, both physically and mentally. Many still bear the scars and many, as is so often the case with other conflicts, have been too quickly forgotten.
On Mount Longdon our soldiers were up against, not conscripts, but professional soldiers consisting of the Argentinian 7th Regiment, reinforced by specialist elements and snipers from their 601 Company together with Argentine Marines. The enemy having had two months to prepare their sangers and bunkers, had far superior equipment—nightsights, ammunition which did not fail, even better boots and food.
My boys, as all those who lost loved ones in that conflict, need to know and continue to know that their father and his fellow soldiers were heroes. Please don't let anyone, no matter who they are, undermine that fact."
Among others, I spoke with the mother of Private Neil Grose, who was killed on Mount Longdon the day after his 18th birthday. He was cold and hungry and his feet were sore. He was hit in the arm by a bullet but went on fighting. Then he was hit in the chest. His friend who carried him down the mountain was also killed. What are we doing? Why are we making the brave and innocent suffer? Is it not time to stop this forthwith?
When I laid a wreath at San Carlos in the Falklands four years ago, in that quiet place surrounded by a circular stone wall just above the sea, in the soft falling rain, I was very moved. Coming back in the helicopter to Mount Pleasant, I scribbled down a short verse:
"Round worlds, round grave,
Here lie the brave
In freedom which they died to save. Seas blue and deep,
Quiet grazing sheep,
God's rain and sunshine while they sleep.".
The dead are asleep and in the hands of God. It is the living for whom we must care.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I must confess to having experienced considerable hesitation before adding my name to the list of speakers. In fact, I did so only yesterday afternoon. I wish to make perfectly clear the reasons for that hesitancy. It was not in any way because the Motion does not raise an important and a significant subject. Clearly, it does. It was not because I have any affection for futile war crimes prosecutions. I made that clear to your Lordships in the debate and on Second Reading of that unfortunate Bill. It was not because I am unacquainted with this subject; during the war I spent several years in the naval law branch of the Admiralty being concerned with the safety and repatriation of naval prisoners of war and the protected personnel. I hesitated because I share the same inhibition as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford; namely, that in this debate we are inhibited by the absence of facts. That is why he kept off the intrinsic subject matter and dealt with important points of principle.
Perhaps I may rehearse what we know. We know that the Secretary of State for Defence has referred allegations to the Crown Prosecution Service. We do not know what those allegations are. We do not know whether they were triggered off by these third-rate, fifth-hand suggestions that have been referred to, which then led to further inquiries. We do not know why the Secretary of State did not refer the matter
1394
immediately—perhaps he did—to the Advocate-General's Department for its comment. We know, because we were told by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 6th December, that the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that there should be a report or inquiry. We do not know what was the basis of her decision. Both the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions are on the one hand an experienced and able politician and on the other hand an experienced and able lawyer.
If the material upon which they acted was as inadequate as has been suggested in this House, I should be the first to join with those who have condemned the action in raising the whole matter. But I do not know and having been brought up —in later years at least—to adhere to the rules of natural justice, I am not prepared to condemn them without hearing what their reasons were.
What else do we know? We know that the inquiry undertaken by the Metropolitan Police started more than a year ago. We do not know why it is still going on. There may be bad reasons for the delay; there may be good reasons for the delay. I just do not know. Having spent quite a bit of my life being critical, I am frustrated by the inability to comment one way or the other as to whether the delay is justified or open to censure. We do not know, as and when the Director of Prosecutions sees the report and consults with the Attorney-General, whether there will be proceedings and if so how long it will take them to reach a decision. We cannot embark upon criticism of the time that that will take since it has not yet begun.
Those are the reasons for my hesitancy. I now wish to give your Lordships my justification for overcoming the hesitancy and wearying you with my intervention. It is simply this: it has been suggested in correspondence and to your Lordships that it is not in the public interest that the investigation should have started or, having started, that it should continue. The only speaker who has referred to whether or not "the public interest"—almost as unruly a horse as "public policy"—can operate in this case is the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, because the existence or absence of a discretion (assuming that what was laid before the Secretary of State justified some inquiry) to start or stop is to be found, and only to be found, in the Geneva Convention of 1949, to which we are signatories.
I repeat what the noble Lord read out because it is short but it is, unfortunately for those who would call off the inquiry, extremely relevant. It reads as follows:
"Each High Contracting Party",
which of course includes us,
"shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts".
It is common ground that if—I emphasise the word "if"—a prisoner, having been taken into custody and clearly having achieved the status of prisoner of war, is shot in cold blood, that is indeed a grave breach. In that situation, the Government have a positive duty laid down in Article 129, to which I have just referred, to search out and bring to their courts, assuming there is sufficient evidence, such a person or persons.

1395
I deeply hope, as we all do, that the investigation will show either that there is no basis at all for asserting that there has been a grave—or indeed any—breach of the Geneva Convention or that the evidence is so tenuous and unreliable and time has gone by to such an extent that it would be quite inappropriate to prosecute. But that hope must not be used as a justification for ignoring our obligations firmly set out in a convention to which we became a party many years ago.
5.32 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, at this late stage of the debate, virtually all that could and should be said has been said in many powerful and moving speeches.
I have nothing approaching the battlefield experience of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, but I know enough of war to know that it is a very ugly affair and that there is nothing like the violence or passion of the battlefield. That has been a consideration running throughout the debate.
It seems to me that there are three questions which we need to answer: is it fair and right to consider prosecuting soldiers for action taken on the battlefield; is it wise to continue this investigation; if it is thought to be wise, should the investigation and possible prosecution be undertaken by the civil or military authorities?
The answer to the first question as to whether it is fair and right to consider prosecuting soldiers taking action in the heat of battle has been so well answered by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that there is no need for me to make any further comment. As was said—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made this clear—it depends where the alleged offences are committed, whether in the heat of battle or against defenceless people behind the lines. I am sure that we all agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that in this case, the alleged acts were committed in the heat of battle, and there is no more to be said.
Should the inquiry continue? Surely it should continue only if there is a clear prima facie case of inhuman action. Again, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made it clear that that is not the case. It is not the case that there has been any inhuman action against a defenceless enemy.
Even if there were a prima facie case, the inquiry should not have been put in hand after such a long time has elapsed since these events took place. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to obtain reliable information, particularly from first-hand witnesses to the alleged offences. I believe that the obligation to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, should have been satisfied long ago, and it is far too late for the inquiry to continue now.
As regards who should conduct the inquiry, if the answers to the first two questions are yes, should it be handled by the military court under military discipline or by the civil court? It should surely not be handled by the civil court, with all the benefit of hindsight and, as I say, the minimum of first-hand witnesses. Again, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, brought out those points.
1396
For those reasons, I believe most strongly that it is unwise and wrong to continue the investigation. For the future, if similar situations arise, they should be handled by the military courts under service discipline. But now, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will represent most forcefully to his right honourable friends the virtually unanimous view of this House that the inquiry should not continue.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I begin by adding my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on his admirable maiden speech. He began by saying modestly that he had never been under fire but before he finished speaking we were convinced that, if he ever were under fire, he would conduct himself in the best tradition of the Guards. We enjoyed his speech and look forward to hearing from him again.
It has been a fascinating and difficult debate. With the grave exceptions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and the possible exception of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Guildford, the overwhelming feeling has been that it was thoroughly wrong to set up the inquiry and that it should be ended at once. Plainly, on the evidence assumed by those speakers, that must be so. But all the time I was asking myself, as I believe was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on what evidence those speakers were proceeding.
I have read this book, or at least the relevant parts of it. It is a disgraceful publication. It tries to be sensational; and it succeeds. It is obviously vastly exaggerated and over-coloured. I should not believe a word of it. But is that the only evidence on which the Government decided to institute an inquiry? We do not know. We do not know whether the Government have more evidence but they have hinted that they have by not putting the inquiry under the Adjutant General but into civilian hands.
I feel emotionally committed to everything that has been said against this inquiry; and yet I am held back by the fact that the Government have not had their say. We do not know why they have done what they did. I am told that the company commander concerned reported to his superior officers at the time and that a report went to the then Secretary of State, Mr. King. That was before the book was written. They decided to do nothing.
Perhaps I may part company for just a moment from our distinguished lawyers. The fact that the Geneva Conventions oblige the Government to take action on breaches presupposes that the evidence is there for such action to be taken. But where is that evidence? Are we to rely on the book for it? I should not rely on anything in that book. Is that the only basis on which the Government have acted? I hear that before making his decision—this may be wrong—the current Secretary of State for Defence consulted the special investigations unit of the military police. Is that true? Moreover, did the unit confirm that an inquiry should be held? I must say that such matters worry me.
I feel so warmly what was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others, about the stress of battle. We assume that it was due to the stress of

1397
battle because it was mentioned in the book; and, indeed, I have not heard any other reason for it. However, several speakers spoke about the stress of battle and it is very hard, even for those who have themselves been under fire, to imagine what it is like.
As we all know, a man's reason can be virtually suppressed altogether by the violence of his emotions. I ask: when soldiers are physically exhausted, when they may have seen their friends wounded or killed and when they may be in considerable fear, how long is it before we think it fair to get them to switch from a resolute determination to kill their enemies to a resolute determination to spare them? How long should that be? One only has to imagine the situation to understand. I entirely endorse everything that was said about action in the stress of battle.
However, what were the circumstances of the case? We really do not know. We shall know in due course if—as we hope will not be the case—a prosecution is launched. But we really do not know what the circumstances were. When the inquiry report is received by the CPS, those concerned will know and will be able to make a judgment. Of course, if the evidence resembles in any way that assumed to be true by the majority of speakers in the debate, the CPS will not have the slightest hesitation in dropping any question of a prosecution. In such circumstances, it is inconceivable that it will proceed. Quite apart from the public service point of view which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, there is also the public interest aspect, which is most important. For example, it can hardly help our relations with Argentina to have a trial with a long drawn-out description about the shooting of prisoners, or if the evidence is based on the stress of battle. All the arguments put forward by noble Lords today will be available to the CPS. In those circumstances, it cannot possibly be true that it would call for a prosecution.
I turn now to the inquiry. It may have been wrong; and, indeed, on the evidence that I have seen, it was wrong to start the inquiry. However, it cannot be right at this stage to end it. Some people will say, "If you end it now it will reinforce the belief that it should never have been started". But many other people, especially those abroad, will say that it has been ended because the evidence was too damning and was suppressed by politicians and the media. Now that we have got so far with the inquiry, and having had over-meticulous investigations carried out in Argentina, surely it is better to let the report go to the CPS.
We can fervently hope that the CPS will take into account all the points that have been made in today's debate. If it does, I am quite sure that there will be no question of a prosecution. However, I believe that we should let the CPS decide. Although we can fervently hope that it decides in the right direction, I think that we should suspend our verdict for the moment.
5.43 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I listened with care to all the eloquent speeches that were made during the course of the debate and to none with more pleasure than the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham.
I should like to begin by making it clear that I believe I speak not only for myself but also for Her Majesty's Government as a whole in being second to none in my admiration for our armed forces and, in particular, for those who so gallantly recovered the Falkland Islands. Indeed, as one of my noble friends referred to them returning to England, I should like to underline the fact that among the most gallant feats of that conflict were those of the Scots Guards. They were feats for which some of those who took part paid with their lives in a situation which merited the highest distinction that can be afforded. I speak with particular feeling because of the name which was held by one of those whom I have in mind. That was a very singular triumph. Nothing that the Government are doing now in any way seeks to detract from that or from our appreciation of it.
The situation that has arisen is that allegations have been made of breaches of the Geneva Convention in the book to which reference has been made. When those allegations were brought to the attention of the Secretary of State, he instituted an investigation by the group within the Ministry of Defence over which he had control in his own responsibility. That was a preliminary inquiry by the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police. The result of that investigation—which, as I said, was preliminary—was inconclusive; in other words, it did not provide a sound basis for refuting the allegations nor for confirming them.
In that situation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence thought it right to consult my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. After consulting my right honourable and learned friend, the Secretary of State for Defence referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. When it was referred to the DPP, the director also consulted the Attorney-General. As a result, the Director of Public Prosecutions requested the police to undertake an investigation.
I think that it would be quite unwise and, indeed, improper for me at this juncture and at this time to speculate in any way on the matter.
It appears that some of my colleagues are experiencing some difficulty in hearing me due to a constant whistling noise. I should point out that that is not directly my responsibility; nevertheless, it is a whistle which, on the whole, I would prefer to have stopped. I am most grateful: the whistle seems now to have stopped. That is most helpful. It will enable noble Lords to follow my speech more easily.
I am clearly inhibited from speaking at this stage about the evidence which is available at present on such matters. Surely it is a cardinal principle that I of all Members of Her Majesty's Government should do nothing in any way that could prejudice a fair trial if—and I emphasise the word "if"—a prosecution were

1399
launched. Therefore, I do not propose to do more than explain the course of events in the way that I have done. However, I shall make some comments on what has been said.
It is the general convention, as I understand it, that in considering whether or not a person should be prosecuted, the Attorney-General is regarded as having the sole responsibility. It is a long-established convention that neither the Cabinet nor the Houses of Parliament would seek in any way to prejudge that decision. The responsibility for prosecutions remains with the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Of course there are other possible prosecuting agencies but I am speaking primarily here on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions who acts under the superintendence of the Attorney General.
This situation is one which was certainly not entered upon lightly. As I have explained, both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Director of Public Prosecutions thought it right to consult my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. I believe that my distinguished colleague, the Attorney-General, is one who takes extremely seriously the responsibilities of his high office and has done everything in his power during his term of office to maintain the high traditions of the Law Officers. I know that in giving his advice on these matters he considered them carefully.
I wish now to make a few comments on some observations that have been made in the course of this debate. First, I wish to emphasise as strongly as I can that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is not correct in suggesting that charges have been made against anyone by the Government. The present stage we are at is the stage of investigating whether or not it is right for the prosecuting authorities —who of course act on their own personal responsibility—to prefer charges against anyone. A decision on that matter cannot be taken properly except in the light of the full circumstances disclosed by the investigation.
My understanding is that the police expect to complete their investigation and report to the Director of Public Prosecutions early in the New Year. I have no information to suggest that the members of the Metropolitan Police who have been undertaking this inquiry have been inciting anyone to give evidence. It would be quite wrong, and certainly out of the line of police duty, for a police officer to incite someone to give evidence in the sense of seeking to elicit from that person evidence which that person was not motivated to put forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. I understand that when Scotland Yard officers went to Argentina they actually put out a broadcast asking former members of the Argentine forces to come forward with any evidence they had. Perhaps my words were rather harsher but I still call that incitement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, noble Lords are familiar with notices at the scenes of accidents inviting people who have evidence to come forward. I think it
1400
would be a slight extension of the ordinary use of the word "incite" to suggest that that amounts to incitement. Precisely what steps the police took is a matter that would be open to question in the course of any subsequent trial. However, my understanding certainly is that what they did was simply to seek to put themselves in contact with anyone who could properly help them in carrying out their inquiry.
I wish to emphasise one more point in relation to what has been said. Your Lordships may take it that neither the Attorney-General nor the Director of Public Prosecutions would seek to commence a prosecution on the basis of what is written in a book, and certainly not on the basis of the second-hand account of someone who "danced with the Prince of Wales", to use the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as he sought to characterise the exaggeration of the claims the book purports to record. Your Lordships may take it, without any fear, that the prosecuting authorities in this country will prosecute only if there is acceptable evidence—which they think it likely a jury would accept—that an offence under the relevant statutory provisions has been committed by the person whom they seek to charge with the offence. The stage at which it is proper to decide that is at the completion of the inquiry. As I have said, I believe that is fairly near. I also believe it is right when an inquiry has been launched in this way that the inquiry should be properly terminated. I accept as correct the particular formulation of that which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned. As far as I am concerned, the investigation at this stage is an investigation which ought to be completed.
I should add a further comment about the general considerations that have been advocated in this debate. It is absolutely apparent that no offence is committed against the Geneva Convention in the heat of battle. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is perfectly correct in that. Your Lordships may take it that, if the circumstances disclosed by the report show that any killings that took place took place in the context of a battle in that sense, then again no prosecution would ensue.
I believe that in the circumstances in which we are now placed the right thing is for the investigation to be completed. That discharges our obligations under the Geneva Convention to the extent of giving proper consideration to whether or not a prosecution should be taken. In the light of these investigations a decision will have to be made by the prosecuting authorities. When that decision comes to be made, as I have said, it would obviously be right that all the considerations—which your Lordships with great experience of martial operations have mentioned—should be taken into account. I believe that they certainly will be taken into account. However, I do not believe it would be right to prejudge, one way or the other, without full knowledge of the facts, how precisely these principles might apply in the circumstances of this case.
The prosecuting authorities often require to carry out duties which are demanding. This is a particularly demanding situation in which properly to conduct themselves. I believe that they seek to conduct themselves with fairness and with proper consideration

1401
for the good name of our armed forces which, I entirely accept, are second to none. One of the aspects of that good name is good discipline, as has been said, and good discipline carries with it the need to investigate, where allegations are made, sufficiently to decide whether or not those allegations are made out.
I should also like to say a word about the time factor. The question of time is not really in the hands of the prosecuting authorities. The time depends on when the allegations are made. Obviously one has to start from that premise. The time which has elapsed since an alleged event is supposed to have taken place can have a great effect, first, on whether a fair trial is possible—a consideration which has been adumbrated in your Lordships' House in another context—and, secondly, in relation to the reliability of the evidence. That will also be an important factor in the ultimate decision. The source of any evidence which is available will be very much taken into account in that connection.
I believe that, having tendered advice, your Lordships would be right to leave the matter in the hands of the prosecuting authorities with confidence that they will properly discharge their difficult responsibility in relation to the circumstances, not as disclosed in any book but as brought to their notice as a result of a proper and careful police investigation.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. A noble Lord asked what the inquiry has cost to date. Would it be possible for us to have an answer to that question?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly. Perhaps I should have done so. I thought that the question of cost, although important, was subsidiary to the main question of principle, which is the primary matter which has been raised. It has already been explained to Parliament that police expenditure to the end of October 1993 was £98,000 and that the estimated police costs are in the region of £3,800 per month for the investigation as it continues. Of course the prosecuting authorities incur costs over and above those, but those are the police costs.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the information that Mr. Attorney was consulted by the Secretary of State for Defence in August 1992 before he set up the investigation. I accept from my noble and learned friend that that is so, but we did not know that before. That makes it all the more important that the overwhelming view of your Lordships' House should be brought to the attention of Mr. Attorney and not to the CPS. I respectfully ask that the overwhelming view of this House is conveyed to Mr. Attorney so that he may consider whether to end these investigations for the reasons that I have given.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It seems that the sense of the House is divided approximately 18 to 4, the four being the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble
1402
Lord, Lord Irvine, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—up to a point—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. However, the principle of democracy applies here. The noble and learned Lord will have heard what has been said from all sides of the House, and that should be conveyed to Mr. Attorney.
There is a fundamental flaw in the approach of the four. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that no offence is committed in the heat of battle. We start on common ground. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, explained that this was the heat of battle. That was an authoritative account but was totally disregarded by the four who went against the majority view of this House. The four seem to assume that the rules of war under the Geneva Convention as regards according PoW status until release or repatriation apply on a battlefield.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to give way. Speaking as one of the four, no such assertion was ever made. The reason for the four taking that view is that we do not know the facts. The point that I made was that, if the person had surrendered and achieved the status of a prisoner of war and was thereafter shot, that would be a grave breach of the convention. I had assumed that to be common ground until the noble Lord rose to reply.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord merely restates what he said before. There was no misunderstanding. I cannot understand why he took it upon himself to intervene at this stage of the proceedings.
I return to this issue because it is the crucial false point taken against us by the four. In this case there was mortar fire on the battlefield, artillery fire on the battlefield and sniper fire on the battlefield. It is idle to pretend that it was not the epicentre of a battle. We have to start with that. There is no way that one can duck that. There is probably only one person in this House who has been in a position which enables him to inform your Lordships on that matter. I hope that your Lordships will accept that from him. These acts occurred in a battle on a battlefield. As the rules do not apply, these investigations should never have been set up. The whole thing was a misconception.
There is another aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked: where is the evidence? Well, where is it? Inquiries have been taking place since August 1992. If we do not have the evidence now we should pack it in. Why should we sanction a formal investigation of this nature? How long are we to leave it to the Crown Prosecution Service, which has many duties, to deal with this matter?
Those points were accepted by your Lordships' House as the reason for sending a message to Mr. Attorney.
Some noble Lords said that there was clear prima facie evidence of a case. Is there really any clear prima facie evidence of a case? We still do not know. Is the allegation based on the book? Are there any other allegations? We have not been told of any. If they are contained solely in the book it is incredible that these investigations should have been set up on the basis of

1403
that quality of evidence. It is all very well for those sitting in an armchair miles away from the battlefield, years after the event, to pontificate as to what putative breaches of international law may have taken place on a battlefield. The whole scenario is unsatisfactory.
In conclusion, perhaps I may wish all noble Lords, those at the Table, and the doorkeepers a very happy Christmas, in particular Mr. Bassett of the Royal Marines and Mr. Carpenter of the Royal Navy, who, I believe, retire tomorrow after 20 years' service. I hope that the good wishes of Christmas may also be extended to those who are at the rough end of these wholly untenable investigations.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before my noble friend indicates what he wishes to do on the Motion, perhaps I may say that, of course, I speak primarily in this Chamber on behalf of the Attorney-General. Therefore my right honourable friend, I am sure, will read with close attention all that has fallen from your Lordships' lips.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Third Age
6.10 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to call attention to the final report of the Carnegie Inquiry into the Third Age; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I first put down the Motion for debate last April almost immediately following the final report of the Carnegie Inquiry. I do not complain about the delay between April and now. In fact, I do not believe that that delay has diminished in any way the importance or relevance of the report. I hope that our short debate will demonstrate that fact.
It is a pure but fortunate coincidence that the debate takes place today; it happens to be the finale of the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between the Generations. I hope that the outcome of our debate, and the proposals contained in the Carnegie Report, may be considered by the European Commission for Social Affairs when it contemplates the next steps following the European Year.
I have been asked, "What is the third age?" It is difficult to define it precisely. We are defining it as the age between 50 and 74 years, before the fourth age. The fourth age is usually termed as the age of almost total dependency. We consider the years between the ages of 50 and 74 to be roughly the third age.
The Carnegie Inquiry was prompted by one of the great social achievements of the 20th century. For the first time in history most people are emerging from full-time work, from bringing up a family, or both, with 20 or 30 years of active life ahead of them. Gone are the days when it was assumed that one would retire, have a couple of years' rest, put one's feet up, and would then either become mentally impaired or would be dead. It is different now. One can rest for perhaps two years but one cannot say that one will rest for 20 to 30 years. One
1404
has to do something else for those 20 or 30 years. That is the aspect that the report covers. That is what we are discussing.
It is the view of the report that either new opportunities must be created or major problems will arise now, and even more so in the future, depending on whether attitudes change and new strategies are implemented by the Government, employers, trade unions, local authorities, voluntary bodies and others.
The inquiry took three years to complete. Nine research reports were published, covering employment, income, learning, leisure, homes and travel, caring, volunteering, citizenship and health. In April this year a 157-page final report summarising the key findings of the research studies and the inquiry's main conclusions and recommendations was published. Nowhere in the world has such a comprehensive report been undertaken. It has produced detailed information which will be useful for many years to come.
The report considers the issues with regard to the individual, economy and society. The report relates to opening up choices and removing barriers. It is not prescriptive in telling people what they should do. There are already many wonderful opportunities in the third age for active, healthy and relatively well-off people. There is, however, colossal disadvantage among poor and poorly-educated people. The inquiry has highlighted the problems of that disadvantage.
The report expresses concern that the spread of income has widened considerably in recent years. It points out that the average income of the bottom fifth of pensioners is now 17 per cent. of the average income of the top fifth. Nearly 60 per cent. of pensioners have a private income of less than £20 per week. Many remain dependent on the state pension for the majority of their income, and yet the value of the state pension is decreasing.
The final report listed 70 proposals for action. I cannot deal with all 70 proposals in this short debate. However, they include the creation of a permanent independent body to monitor the third age issues at national level and the need for a focal point for third age issues to be established within government. The idea of an interdepartmental ministerial committee which could take a strategic long-term view across all areas of policy has long been supported by the All-Party Group for Pensioners in the House of Commons, Age Concern, England, and the House of Lords All-Party Group on Ageing, of which I have the privilege to be chairman. An interdepartmental committee would be able to make a comprehensive survey of all the aspects and implications of an ageing society. It would also be ideally placed to assess the impact of new policies and to ensure that they remain appropriate as the population ages.
In a debate in your Lordships' House in 1991 about: the need for such a committee, there was general agreement about the need for a proper and full assessment of the implications of current demographic trends. The Government recognise that our ageing population presents us with both challenges and opportunities. Yet they remain reluctant to set up a full

1405
cross-departmental inquiry. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister has any comments about the proposal.
Political debate on the implications of our ageing society has focused primarily on the demographic time bomb, the "economic burden", and the prospects of meeting the costs of a changing demographic structure. The effective policies to meet the challenge of an ageing population must be based on a clear understanding of the implications for society and the economy as a whole. The pattern of demographic change must be looked on as an opportunity, not simply as a cost-cutting exercise. Surely the longer people in their third age can maintain their independence and postpone the "fourth age"—the age of increasing dependency—and the more they can become net contributors to society, the better it will be for them and for everyone else.
The report recognises that factor. With a steadily ageing population and longer life expectancy, it is increasingly difficult for society to provide adequate levels of pensions, education, health and care services for the young, and the frail old, at acceptable levels of tax and contributions. That is a recognised fact. It makes no sense therefore for people in their third age to add to those problems by becoming dependants, rather than contributors, simply because of age.
A few up-to-date statistics might help to put the matter into perspective. In 1991, 50–74 year-olds represented 24 per cent. of the total population. By 2021 their numbers will have increased to 30 per cent., almost a third of the population. The number of people over present pension age amounted to 11 million in 1991. By 2031 that figure will be 16 million. The number of children and pensioners per 100 people of working age in 1990 was 63. By 2031 it is estimated that the figure will be 77. That is 77 children and pensioners per 100 people of working age. That is an issue which has to be considered now, not when we are almost in that situation.
The current state pension as a percentage of male earnings is 16 per cent. If price indexation is maintained and employers' and employees' national insurance contributions remain at the present level of 19 per cent., pensions as a percentage of earnings will become 8.5 per cent. in 2030. That is about half the current level. Retaining the present 16 per cent. relationship between pensions and earnings would require national insurance contributions to rise from 19 per cent. to 26 per cent. by 2030. Those are the kinds of problem which we ought to be considering in depth and in detail now. Thus, we need a complete re-think of policies and attitudes, planning for 20 years ahead when the baby boomers of a few years ago retire and enabling third-agers to undertake real work in good quality jobs, which may often be on a part-time or self-employed basis.
In that context, one of the key concerns of the inquiry and an issue which has been of continuing interest to the House of Lords All-Party Group on Ageing is the problem of age discrimination which older people face. We all remember the valiant efforts of our late colleague, Lady Norah Phillips, in the context of age discrimination. The Carnegie Inquiry recommends a
1406
comprehensive attack by the Government, employers, trade unions, local authorities and others, and by the media, on age discrimination and other barriers to older people working; a firm statement from Her Majesty's Government, with a code of practice and action by the Government as an employer, to encourage voluntary means, as far as possible, to monitor progress and to be prepared to legislate if necessary if the voluntary approach does not succeed.
Another key recommendation of the inquiry calls on the Government and others to regard education and training not as an initial, vocational process for a short period of time, as we seem to accept now, but as a life-long, continuing process for all, providing greater access and opportunities for learning so that people of all ages can maintain their skills, fulfil their potential and enjoy their later years. That calls for additional resources, but not at the expense of younger age groups. The report also goes into that in some detail. There is a need for cheap and accessible courses, and the inquiry was concerned about the decrease in local authority adult education provision.
The report also highlighted the position of carers. One-fifth of third-agers had caring responsibilities and half of all carers were in their third age. Although sex distribution among older carers was fairly even, women tended to be at the heavy end of the caring process. Many carers are losing pension rights or using their savings to exist. Their needs had to be given priority, according to the report. Older volunteers could also play an important lay role in caring. Employers could play a bigger part than they do now by helping employees with caring responsibilities. For myself, I should like to see a more detailed debate on issues involving caring and carers early in the new year. I shall do what I can to stimulate that debate. Meanwhile, I should again welcome comments from the Minister on what proposals the Government may have at the moment to improve carers' benefits and recognition of their worth and needs, as outlined by the inquiry, even in advance of the implementation of all their recommendations.
I have dealt with just a few of the issues and sketched them out, but, before closing my remarks, I ought to commend the Carnegie United Kingdom trustees for their vision, not only in establishing the inquiry but also in establishing a further set of arrangements for following up with a programme aimed at implementing its recommendations. It is a tremendous task and I think that the inquiry has produced a wonderful report.
I hope that the House will welcome the report and support the inquiry's clear call for action by the Government, by employers, local authorities and individuals of all ages, accepting, in the words on page 103 of the Carnegie Report,
"that the third age is not a short rest before dependency or death. It is an important and lengthening stage of the life cycle which nearly all will experience".
With thought and preparation, it can, in my view, be made vastly more rewarding. That would fit in quite neatly with the events that have taken place during the European Year and what we hope will come from it.
A third age programme will be set up to implement the recommendations and proposals contained in the report and I look forward to the provision of new reports upon the implementation. I beg to move for Papers.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for the way in which he has introduced this important and challenging debate. In introducing the Motion, he rightly spoke to the report as a whole and showed clearly how widely the Carnegie Inquiry ranged over the subject of the third age. For my part, I propose to concentrate on those aspects of the problem or opportunity, as Age Concern would have it, of which I have some experience: namely, the chapters concerning employment and training.
The report highlights the fact that the third age is a new phenomenon and that for the 14 million people now aged between 50 and 74 in the United Kingdom, introduction to it means a switch from full-time work to a period of rest and inactivity that is sudden and compulsory. In a memorable phrase to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has already referred, the report says:
"Resting for two years may be fun, but how many people really want to rest for 20 years?".
We are told, moreover, that the new third age will become more, not less, important and that in our ageing society either younger workers must support an increasing proportion of inactive older people or people must continue to work for longer.
The advisory committee which prepared the report considered it essential that the substantial and growing proportion of the active independent adult population should contribute to society through paid work or in other ways. It did not think that there was an inherent conflict between this and greater individual freedom and choice because it believed that most people found life more satisfying if they were involved with others and able to contribute as well as to take.
The committee recognised, however, that a whole range of attitudes and policies and sheer lack of information stand in the way. For me, perhaps the most telling paragraph of the report was paragraph 2.3 which states:
"We need to establish that the third age is not about retirement from activity into a long holiday, is not just about consumption, is not an apprenticeship for a fourth age of dependency, is not the prerogative of the well to do, is not a transient phenomenon or a far-fetched invention. It is here now for large numbers of people, including many who are severely disadvantaged and the numbers will grow. Our society needs to develop a norm of continuing and changing activities, some paid and some not, for everyone for so long as health lasts. This is the central issue of our Inquiry".
I turn now to more specific employment issues. The committee acknowledged that it was entirely understandable that in times of high unemployment, as at present, younger and prime age workers were often given priority for jobs. For my part, I would go further and say that in general in such times, if any age group has to miss out, it should not be school-leavers and people bringing up children. It can, therefore, only be those for whom that period is past. I therefore sympathise with the way in which enlightened
1408
employers, with the support of trade unions, continue to use occupational pension schemes to offer attractive terms for early retirement, thereby avoiding or limiting costs to their firms.
On the other hand, having once had direct experience of problems associated with early retirement in a large company, I have had occasion to observe the miserable waste of talent that that produces. The question then arises as to what more can be done now, through training and in other ways, to ensure that use continues to be made of that potential.
The report points out that employers do not normally have specific policies about older workers. That view is supported by research sponsored by, among others, Metra, a consortium of local authorities with a common interest in recruitment and retention. The research showed that only 27 per cent. of the local authorities surveyed had undertaken a review of their personnel policies to check for age discrimination. The attitude of line managers in job selection was found to be crucial. I can well understand that. Yet 44 per cent. of respondents felt that the attitude of line managers recruiting older workers was an obstacle.
The Carnegie Report tells us that what employers do have are stereotypes which have a great influence on how they recruit, train and promote. In general, older workers are perceived to be less productive, to have fewer relevant skills and to be less trainable, so that training them to provide the relevant skills has a low rate of return. Yet evidence from the health study referred to in Chapter 3 of the report shows that:
"third agers are able to learn well and work productively provided they are not pressured, learn on the job rather than by memorising instructions, so far as possible build on previous experience, and are not given tasks involving a lot of physical strength or quick reaction times."
Another misconception identified by the Institute of Management Studies is that older workers are likely to leave quickly. In fact, numerous findings show that, once recruited, they are likely to stay longer with an employer than are younger people.
Against that background, the inquiry has recommended remedial action by central government, employers and trade unions. Specifically, it says that government should end discrimination against older people in the provision of employment training; increase resources to achieve that without reducing training for other age groups; and ensure that training and enterprise councils—and in Scotland, local enterprise companies—set targets for training those over 50 and monitor their implementation. In addition, government should work with TECs and LECs to support the development of much more and better training for older workers by employers, including of course all employing authorities for which government are responsible. I gladly endorse those recommendations, and I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he replies to say how far the Government are also prepared to do so. In particular I should be grateful if he would confirm my understanding that unemployed older workers are in future to be offered the opportunities to retrain up to the age of 63 on Training for Work, the scheme for the long-term unemployed, the current age limit being 59.

1409
That brings me to the question of the recruitment of older workers. Nearly five years have passed since Lady Phillips, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, rightly paid tribute, secured the agreement of this House to a Bill which sought among other things to make it unlawful to specify an upper age limit in job advertisements or to refuse a job to someone on grounds of age alone. Speaking in the Second Reading debate on that Bill, I supported its underlying concept but said that, if there were to be statutory sanctions against age discrimination, there would be, as in the case of the United States, the need to consider exceptions to the general rule—for example, on grounds of public safety, or where a firm could demonstrate that an effect of having no age limit would be to distort the age distribution of its employees.
Although on that occasion the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that the Government did not believe that people should be written off on grounds of age, they had grave reservations about legislating in that field. Since then, there has of course been no such legislation. But as the Carnegie Report made plain, the more imminent prospect of demographic change means that both government and employers now need urgently to look ahead 20 years, to when what has been called the baby boom generation will approach retirement. The population of working age will then fall; the retired population will rise; and the transfer of resources from workers to retired people will increase the tax and contributions burden on those at work. In the words of the report,
"The best single contribution to reducing the burden is to enable and encourage third agers to work within a job creating economy. The potential economic benefits to both older and younger people, to employers and to the national economy are enormous".
In its conclusions concerning employment, the report notes how the content and organisation of work are gradually being transformed by information technology; a smaller core workforce; growth in casual part-time and self-employment; and a growing service sector. Those trends favour the kind of work which third agers often want, but such work requires personal and technical skills which they lack. The report states that opportunities for people in the third age are largely determined by their second age training and experience. It is therefore essential that steps should be taken now to ensure that the baby boom generation benefits from lifelong training and re-skilling.
More specifically, in its proposals for action, the committee recommends that employers should follow the key suggestions in a code of practice produced by the Institute of Personnel Management in 1991. Foremost among those is that the use of age related criteria should be challenged in every aspect of decision-making. Further, in adapting their policies to realise the potential of older workers, employers should use and extend the innovatory policies already developed successfully by some firms, for example in retailing, nursing and teaching. Perhaps I may say here that as a result of my own industrial experience I am a great believer in the efficacy of building on best practice in that way.
1410
As regards action which government might take, the inquiry considered that on grounds of the national economy, equity and social cohesion—and also because labour market forces alone seem unlikely to change present damaging practices—the Government should take the initiative centrally to reduce unfair age discrimination and to promote the employment of older people.
I rather admired the pragmatic way in which the eminent members of the advisory committee, representative of many interests, set out how that might be done. One option, they said, would be for the Government to adopt a policy of eliminating age discrimination, except where it was specifically justified, backed by a code of practice published by government after debate in Parliament; follow that policy and code as an employer; and exhort others to do the same. The effect of that approach would be monitored by government and the results would be promulgated. I have some sympathy with that approach. Indeed, it is one that I have more than once suggested to the Government in relation to the subject of employee involvement. I did so most recently when the noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked his Unstarred Question a few weeks ago on employee share ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, afterwards wrote to give me the Government's Answer. It was courteous but dusty. However, since such a course is the minimum action that the advisory committee suggested the Government should take, I hope that in his reply the noble Viscount will say whether the Government favour it in this case.
At the other extreme, the report states that the Government could intervene forcefully against discrimination, either through public sector programmes or by legislation. The intermediate option favoured by the inquiry would be to start with a voluntary approach and monitor progress, but make it clear that legislation would be introduced if a voluntary approach did not work. The Government could make that policy more effective by creating or supporting a monitoring agency to assess progress and advise on future action. If legislation were ultimately to be decided upon, initially that might be limited to the fields of recruitment, training and promotion.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he replies, will give at least a general indication of the Government's view on the inquiry's recommendations as to the action which the Government might take on these matters.
6.40 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this debate. It is an interesting and highly relevant topic for the nation. It is one that will require much debate and discussion probably over the next 20 years. This is not an issue for which one can pass a law and find that it will go away. That is why I feel that it is appropriate that we should be discussing this third age issue at the present time. It will be a continuing debate which will go on for some time to come.
I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, down the employment trail and try to avoid

1411
repeating his conclusions. He said nothing very much with which I disagreed. I see a great problem in the number of conflicting tensions in the employment of people in the third age; those are people aged 50 and above, some of whom are present in your Lordships' Chamber. By no means all Members fall into that category.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, there is the conflict caused by higher unemployment which encourages early retirement. That conflicts with the proposal of being able to work longer. That is one area of tension.
Secondly, today there are high costs of employment which were not there 20 years ago. Broadly speaking, that means that it is cheaper to employ people to work longer hours each day than to employ people to work a shorter day. It is cheaper for an employer to have two people working 12 hours a day than it would be to have three people working eight hours a day—to take figures of simple arithmetic. That causes tension by encouraging people to take opportunities for working longer.
Thirdly, there is tension between the frequent rigid programme of employment against the need for much more flexible employment. One of the points that comes over to me from the report is the need for flexible employment arrangements. Many of our employment arrangements are very rigid. That again causes tension.
The fourth area that I should like to highlight, and again it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is the fact that nowadays we press for early retirement to produce increased leisure. That places an added burden on the pension system.
So it seems to me that there are many conflicting tensions at which we need to look carefully. I believe that there is an ongoing need and there are no simple solutions to those problems of tension.
The report has the backing of a very experienced committee with members from both sides of your Lordships' House. When I saw the membership, I knew that it was composed of people with an enormous amount of expertise behind them. I am not surprised that they have produced this enormous tome for our digestion. In itself, it is an amalgam of reports, which is why the whole problem can appear to be so complex. But we need to think laterally and change our mind frame. We are moving into an era that is very different from the past.
Perhaps I may also touch on the matter of carers. I have not checked the figure but I believe that there are about 6 million carers in this country. The report highlights the fact that 20 per cent. of all third agers—all those between the ages of 50 and 74—are carers. That means that one in five of that age group, which covers a 25-year span, are carers. The carers form a very big group of people. I believe that they need special attention. In debates in this House we often refer to the problem of carers, who work very hard. Much has been said about them in recent legislation. We need to come back to them again. They are an important factor in the third age debate.
The report advocates early retirement from full-time core employment, so that people would then move into
1412
other categories of work. That is important. It needs much more investigation. There is a lot of experience available—I have not been able to find mention of it in the report—from sports people and military people, who all have this problem now. They leave their full-time core employment early. The military are always being made redundant, sometimes in their 30s or 40s and at the latest when they are in their 50s. Sports people cannot continue to run a 100-yard race for very long. There are already many people who must be retrained and who move into different spheres of occupation. I am not sure whether the report has drawn on the wealth of experience that must be there.
There are four points that I should like to make on the positive side of this issue. The first concerns flexibility. I believe that we need to explore many different avenues in the re-employment issue. We need to look at methods of self-employment and part-time employment that fit. It would mean fitting in a lot of different people and many different solutions are needed. Again, we cannot look rigidly at this matter. It must be examined laterally to see what a wealth of opportunities are available for people to move into different categories of work.
I agree with much of what is said in the report about moving into smaller units of self-employment so that people can work at the pace at which they want to work. I reckon that I now work at a slower pace than 30 years ago and I am sure that that is true of one or two other noble Lords as well. We need to be able to adjust.
My second point is also highlighted in the report. It concerns the matter of new training and re-skilling., which is a word that I have not come across before. The word "re-skilling" comes from the report. It is not a word that I have used before but I have learnt it now. Gradually, in the fast-changing world in which we live, many people's skills with which they have been working for 30 or 40 years are becoming obsolete. That exacerbates the need for retraining. A lot of the work that people have been doing for a long time is unsuitable for those in the older age group. I can think of many types of such work which depend on muscle and so on. We need to retrain people to work in new spheres. I am a solicitor and my firm has a continuing education programme. I have to take part in it just as much as people who are half my age. I believe that a continuing education programme is needed by the country in all spheres of life. Some companies are much better at it than others.
The third point that I would highlight from the report is that the age of 50 should be:
"a trigger for the process of review and re-planning"
That is a valid point. We must not get into a rut. Your Lordships are all young and active. I am sure that nobody in your Lordships' House is in danger of getting into a rut in the work they do and the life they lead. I believe that when we reach the age of 50, it should be a trigger to examine what we shall be doing for the next 20 years. The report makes a valid point on that. It should be a time for counselling, training and looking at how we are going to spend the next 20 or so years. It is not too early to think of change in whatever we are doing.

1413
Fourthly, companies need to realise the potential of older workers. There are things that people with 30 years' experience can do which a lot of people half their age cannot do. Employers need to think through how to use people with a lot of experience but perhaps less energy to the best advantage of the company as well as of the individual. It needs lateral thinking. We must not let people just burn out and then throw them on the dung heap. That is an inhuman and immoral way of treating people. We need to show respect to our employees, to ourselves and to other people. The report highlights the need for that.
In conclusion, this is not the time for the Government to introduce quick legislation. We need more discussion and more encouragement of employers to think laterally about how to do the things which I have highlighted and which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, highlighted on the employment issue. We need more thinking and more discussion. I hope that the Government will encourage that. I commend the report.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the report we are discussing is indeed a thorough and sophisticated investigation which raises a number of important and quite difficult questions. It has been very relevant to the work of the all-party group on ageing, of which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is the indefatigable chairman. We owe a debt of gratitude to him for his Motion and for his illuminating introduction to the debate.
The noble Lords who have already spoken have discussed various aspects of this wide-ranging report. For my part, I should like to concentrate on just one issue—the issue of income and in particular pensions—although I do so with considerable diffidence when I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, is to speak later in the debate and will have every opportunity of correcting the mistakes which I shall no doubt make. It sounds not a very exciting subject, but it is very important.
As the report points out, there is a great and growing disparity between those in this age group who are at the top of the income scale and those who are at the bottom. For pensioners, the average income of the bottom one-fifth is now only about 17 per cent. of the average income of the top one-fifth. That top one-fifth forms a comparatively prosperous section of our society, whom incidentally advertisers, for some reason, choose to ignore. But most pensioners have a pretty low income; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, pointed out, many of them remain mainly dependent on the state pension. Unfortunately for them, the decision taken in the early 1980s to switch the indexation of the pension from average earnings to the retail prices index has resulted in a steady reduction in its value, and it looks as though it will gradually fade away to comparative insignificance.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, quoted some figures which bear repetition. The pension has already shrunk to some 16 per cent. of average male earnings; and the report calculates that by the year 2030 it is likely to be
1414
down to about 8.5 per cent. Very formidable problems arising from those statistics lie ahead for the Government.
There is also the problem of pensioners' savings. We hear a great deal about the need to cut interest rates for the benefit of industry, mortgage payers and so on. We do not hear quite so much about the dramatic decline in income which those cuts mean to millions of elderly people. They may have put their life savings in a building society, or the post office, or a bank, only to see the interest payments which were planned to supplement their pension being reduced to a point where they are hardly visible to the naked eye. The Chief Secretary for his part never lets pass an opportunity to warn us against assuming that the state will support people in their old age. But for those in the age group we are discussing, self-help is not all that easy if one is having to care for an invalid spouse or if one cannot get a paid job because society deems that you are too old. But the story gets even worse.
Perhaps I may mention at this stage that I was the first chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board, now marked down for oblivion. If I learnt anything, it was that pensions are a very complicated subject which not everyone understands; that expert impartial advice is essential but hard to get; and that if one makes a mistake, one usually finds it out only when it is too late.
In the late 1980s this Government did two things. First, they encouraged people to contract out of the state earnings related pension scheme—SERPS for short—by offering rebates on contributions. Indeed, they are still at it. Only the other day they came out with new proposals for age-related rebates. Whether every one of the millions who contracted out took expert advice that the change would be for the better must be open to some slight doubt. The second thing that the Government did was to give full backing and incentives to personal pensions, with benefits governed by future investment returns, and to open the door for people to take out these personal pensions in place of those provided for in their occupational schemes. At a time of vigorous economic growth, booming markets and favourable terms for annuities, the private sector rushed to take advantage of these opportunities presented to them by the Government, and it rather looks as though expert salesmen turned from selling kitchenware and double glazing to selling pensions, handicapped only by ignorance of what they were selling. So-called independent financial advisers flourished, but most unfortunately they too depended on their commissions, and they made no money by telling someone that his best course was to do absolutely nothing and not to dream of leaving his company's scheme.
We are now beginning to find out the consequences. It turns out from an accountant's investigation that, out of half a million workers who opted out of occupational schemes and transferred to private schemes, around 80 per cent.—400,000 people—were badly advised and would have done better to have left their money where it was. The Securities and Investments Board is now engaged in a scrutiny of the individual cases and it looks as though compensation will be forthcoming in due course. But it is a mess. We have heard from the life

1415
assurance association—LAUTRO—and from the SIB. We have not heard very much from the Government who made it all possible and must have known about this sad state of affairs for quite some time.
Do not the Government have a troubled conscience about all that? Do not some of those responsible sleep a little uneasily at nights? By a fortunate chance, the Minister chosen to reply to this wide-ranging debate happens to be a Minister for the Department of Social Security. What a splendid opportunity the debate provides for him to tell us what the Government think about the whole matter and, in particular, whether—perhaps coupled with the Goode reforms—they will take steps to make pensions advisers truly independent and make it illegal for insurance companies to pay commissions. The inquiry was abundantly justified in expressing its unease about pensions—basic, personal and occupational. I trust that the Government are carefully considering its findings.
I have spoken of pensions; but there are many other issues, and that brings me to my final point; to repeat and emphasise the contention to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, refers regarding the need for a central focus in government. I suspect that in preparing for the debate, the Minister had to assemble briefs from a variety of sources. It may even be that he has developed a sneaking sympathy for the argument that there should be some part of the governmental machinery which should be responsible for bringing these issues together. Whether he will be able to say anything of comfort, we shall have to wait and see; but not for long. I hope that he can, for the report we are discussing is concerned with the well-being of a large section of our society which, in the right circumstances, could contribute so much more.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I join in the appreciation expressed to my noble friend Lord Stallard for his initiative in introducing the debate, not only on my behalf but also on behalf of the trustees of the Carnegie Trust, including the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who initiated the inquiry. The report amply justifies the decision of the trust to initiate and mainly to fund the inquiry, although in 1990 some of us felt that it warranted a full-scale Royal Commission with all the resources that would have been available. Alas, at that time Royal Commissions were out of fashion, although perhaps the Criminal Justice Royal Commission shows that it is coming back into fashion, and that is welcome. It is fortunate that the Carnegie Trust filled the gap.
As my noble friend Lord Stallard said, it is a happy coincidence that it is published in the EC Year of older people. "Solidarity between generations" is a phrase that filled me with awe when I first read it. When I saw it in German I was even more appalled, but I believe that it has a deeper meaning than I first realised. I am grateful too for the part played by Age Concern.
We, in your Lordships' House, ought to be the experts on the third age. It is sometimes said that this is the best day centre in London. I do not believe that is true. Day centres are for the fourth age, the age of
1416
dependence. Most of us typify the age of active independence after retirement—the "young-old" as we have been called. We know the advantages and disadvantages and the consolations of the third age. What we do not know—although the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, reminded us of it—is the worry of living on the edge of poverty which afflicts so many people in that age.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, reminded us, we know the value of keeping active and involved. If we are not in a rut, as he said, I suspect that that is due to the part that volunteering plays in the lives of so many Members of your Lordships' House. I shall speak specifically of that part of the report, Chapter 10—the other side of the coin to that spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
The report draws attention both to the growing need for volunteers and to the rewards that volunteering offers, emphasising in particular that volunteering brings many of the rewards of employment, other than pay, including companionship, purpose, esteem and a time structure for one's life. Volunteering enables people to use their skills and to acquire new skills. Some of the best organisers of voluntary groups whom I know are former trade union officials and shop stewards. On the other hand, volunteering can help people to discover skills that they never knew they had, proving that everybody is good at something.
Despite that, volunteering falls in the years after retirement. As we were reminded, between the ages of 35 and 44, one-third of people are involved in volunteering; between 65 and 74 only one-fifth are involved. There is no shortage of organisations looking for older volunteers with the special gifts that they bring. In order to build bridges between voluntary organisations and potential recruits, a number of bodies have sprung up, notably the Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme established by CSV. Last year the RSVP helped to place 2,000 volunteers in projects and between them they gave 400,000 hours of active participation and involvement in a range of voluntary causes—causes which ranged from providing secretarial help for the blind to the provision of multi-lingual guides for Westminster Abbey.
I commend particularly the work of the RSVP in the field of education. Many people have a wide range of skills, talent and experience to offer as volunteers in school projects. Under the guidance of teachers they can bring patience, understanding and common sense to a range of school activities. Indeed, an increasing number of schools are using older volunteers to help pupils with learning difficulties; to talk to groups about lifestyles and the customs of our younger days; and to share their special skills in such fields as art, crafts, electrical work or cookery.
RSVP emphasises that volunteers are not there to teach but to offer support to teachers. They must not substitute for or destroy paid jobs. It is important that the agreement of employees is secured before volunteers are used; that they receive appropriate training; that they are covered by insurance and receive out-of-pocket expenses. Much more needs to be done to make older people aware of the opportunities for and the

1417
satisfaction of volunteering. In a recent survey of why people over 50 do not volunteer, one of the main reasons given was, quite simply, "Nobody ever asked me". The report gives some useful advice on how central and local government can help bodies like the RSVP and the Volunteers Centre to publicise volunteering and recruit volunteers.
In particular it offers extremely useful advice on how unions and employers can help recruit and prepare older employees for volunteering, including those approaching normal retirement and those who, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, reminded us, are required to retire prematurely.
Encouraging people to live an active and fulfilling retirement should be as natural a subject for discussion between employers and unions as is the provision of proper pensions. Good employers already accept their responsibilities for the well being of their employees after retirement by providing pensions. They should be taking this a step further forward by providing information on and preparation for retirement, including information about opportunities for volunteering, and by giving people the time off to enable them to become involved in voluntary work before retirement, as well as by seconding employees to work with voluntary organisations and charities.
The obligations of industry to society do not stop when the finished product goes out of the factory gate. Managers and employees are, and should see themselves as, part of the society in which they live. For one thing, one day they are just as likely as anyone else to require the services and support of voluntary organisations, such as the Alzheimers Disease Society, the Red Cross or MENCAP. So it is in the interests of both managers and employees to support such bodies financially, to encourage people to become involved and to become involved themselves.
Another way in which management and unions can help to meet the needs of third agers was brought out in the chapter on caring in the report. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is to speak later and I know that with the depth of her knowledge of and commitment to this area she will undoubtedly speak very much more eloquently than I can about the problems and opportunities of carers. However, I should like to underline a couple of points. As my noble friend Lord Stallard and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, have already pointed out, the report underlines the fact that one-fifth of third agers—that is, people aged between 50 and 74—are carers, and nearly half of all carers are in that age group. They are the main providers of care in the community. I hope that we shall not fall into the trap of delineating the concept of "the third age" simply by age because we should think of it as the time of independence before one degenerates and becomes dependent, at whatever age that might be.
Perhaps I may pick out for special emphasis—as does the report—the impact on so many carers of having to give up their jobs to care for a loved one. Not only do they lose their pay, but they lose their pensions and are thus condemned to lifetime poverty. What is more, when they stop work they often lose contact with their
1418
friends and are cut off from society. The report spells out the nature of and the reasons for the poverty of people in that category. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will speak about the improvements in benefits that are needed.
I should also like to point out, as has the Alzheimers Disease Society recently, the desperate need for more NHS psycho-geriatric continuing-care beds. Noble Lords have long drawn to the attention of the Government the scandal of the precipitate closure of psychiatric hospitals. Perhaps the Government will begin to listen as the death toll from suicide and violent attacks rises.
Returning to the report itself, it is not only central and local government which have obligations in this area. Where possible, carers should be encouraged and enabled to go on working, where appropriate on a part-time basis and with flexible hours and time off when that is essential. That, too, could well be the subject of joint initiatives by management and unions at local level, possibly linking up with the voluntary organisations in providing respite care and in offering, for example, transport facilities to disabled people and their carers.
A particularly valuable feature of the inquiry is that its work did not cease with the publication of the report. As my noble friend Lord Stallard pointed out, the Carnegie UK Trust has established a third age programme to follow up the report and to work with a range of governmental and non-governmental organisations to give effect to its proposals. I very much hope that the members of that programme including, I am delighted to say, my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden, will, among other things, be able to persuade employers and unions to put volunteering and caring on their agenda for action.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I should like first to associate myself with those noble Lords who have spoken before me and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for initiating this important debate. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the Carnegie UK Trust for having undertaken the inquiry and produced a report which is full of information and ideas. It is a quarry—perhaps a treasure trove—in which we shall continue to find new elements as we return to it.
We are talking about a group that comprises 16 per cent. of the population of this country, rising to 20 per cent. in the next 40 years. Your Lordships will have noted the figures that I have used. Those percentages refer to the number of people in the population who are over 65. If there is one point on which I do not find the report excessively useful, it is on the age limits that it has chosen. That is true at both ends of the scale. As far as I can see, people of 50 and 55 are very active in our society, in our economy and in our lives in general. It is a sad fact that nowadays they are often the first hit by redundancies. I suspect that we shall see more redundancy among white-collar workers as the process of restructuring in industry and the services continues.

1419
However, that sad fact does not mean that we should immediately identify 50 and 55 year-olds with the third age.
I have long had a lot of respect for the late Congressman Pepper in the United States Congress, who, when he was 75, got legislation through Congress which raised the retiring age to 70 and who, when he was over 80, managed to get legislation through Congress which abolished the retiring age altogether with certain very limited exceptions, such as for airline pilots. In other words, I do not think that we should define "the third age" at too early an age.
Furthermore, I do not think that we should add the concept of "the fourth age" to that of the third age as we discuss this new and important issue. After all, it is barely more than two weeks since I saw in this House two noble Lords who, sadly, have since passed away but for whom I have long held great respect. I refer to Lord Bessborough, whom I knew when he was a Member of the European Parliament and who was active to the end of his days, and to Lord Hirschfield, whom I knew as a governor of the London School of Economics and who was also active to the end of his days. Both were 80. In my view, "active" is the key word. Activity is what is necessary for human beings at all stages in their lives. If there is a problem, it is in creating favourable conditions for activity for people who are 60, 65, 70, 75 or more.
I am sure that those of us who have at any stage been responsible for institutions can all remember the sad occasions when retirement led men in particular to a fairly rapid deterioration in physical appearance and in ability to organise their days. It is in that regard that many of us should start to think about alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, quoted the reference in the report to occupational trends favouring
"the kind of work which third agers often want".
Now that I am head of a small business—I refer to the Oxford college of which I have the honour to be warden—I could not exist without retired police officers, car workers and secretaries who help in many ways, and sustain the institution itself, by their presence, contributions and experience, and, incidentally, not least by their ability to talk to young people, given the special relationship between grandparents and children, as against parents and children, at least in some cases.
In this connection, let me say a special word about education. Those of us who have taught, or who are teaching, know that there may be no group more grateful for education than those who have retired or who are in the more generously defined third age, as I should like to use the term. There is no group of people more grateful, because those people are highly motivated and they bring to bear on the education process an experience which one often has to begin to construct for young students, because they have not seen the world which education has to put into some sort of order for them.
Third age people learn for fun and for a purpose. They are therefore extraordinary students. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for using an example told to me by a Canadian friend who was dean of a faculty. He spoke of a lady of 86 who wanted to enrol in a computer course. When he asked her, "Do you have any previous
1420
knowledge of computing?", she said, "None". He said, "Well, in that case I recommend that you take the course which starts next spring". She said, "But who knows whether I shall still be around by that time?" I have told that story as an illustration of a particular kind of motivation. Something that is possibly useful, but, above all fun; something that people want to do; education which people genuinely seek; that education is not a matter of course nor is it a mere appendix to more traditional forms of education. In my experience, it is not good enough to say that it is nice to see a few elderly people in a class which is essentially a class of young students. A special effort is needed to satisfy the special needs of that group of people.
If I were not so much against government agencies—of many kinds—I should be tempted to say that instead of a teachers' training agency we should perhaps have a third age education agency. However, as I say, I am not sure that we should have any such agencies, but we should encourage, and encourage in every conceivable way, the opportunities which a University of the Third Age—a small, private, important initiative—and other institutions at many levels are already offering. We should encourage them, and ultimately there will need to be some financial support for some of them, but no doubt that is a matter which will be raised in further discussions in the House.
The important point is that people in the third age want to, and have to, do something rather than just sit around. It is bad enough that, as the Carnegie study tells us, working adults spend about 18 hours a week watching television, with, I believe, a little radio tacked on. In the case of working adults, radio is insignificant. It is worse when older men—it is less true of women, and there is a special question as to why in many cases women find it easier to cope with the challenges of the third age than men —spend 25 hours watching television. That is nearly a quarter of their waking hours. I am sure that one of the reasons for that is that there are not enough opportunities to do something, not enough opportunities for activity. By "activity" I mean doing something useful, meaningful and satisfying.
Of course—and here I support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said—basic income security is a precondition. It is for that reason that pension arrangements are critical. It is probably no accident that the Reagan and Bush Administrations in the United States, whatever else they may have done, never touched what in America is called social security; that is, arrangements for old people. It is no accident because in America more than in this country, old people make their voices heard. It is on that note that I wish to conclude my brief reflection, which is highly supportive, on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
We should not talk about the third age in terms of charity. We should not talk about the third age as if it embraced a group of fellow citizens for whom we feel sorry, or for whom we need to feel sorry; we should perhaps talk about them in the language of responsibility which we all have for everyone in our society. We should be aware also of the fact that third age people are independent. They are, for example,

1421
independent voters. They do not necessarily make up their minds on the basis of where they belong professionally, but think harder than others who find it more automatic to vote for one party or another. Who knows? —the kind of movement one has seen in some countries under the name of Gray Panthers may not turn into a political party, but it is a political force. We are not talking about a luxury. We are not talking about a charity. We are talking about one of the essential elements of a civilised society.
7.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this report, and I am grateful for the report itself. Perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that the Church of England produced a report on a similar subject but called it, rather depressingly, Ageing. I am happy to say that the study guide attached to it is called Happy Birthday Anyway. That seems to be better.
I wish to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said: there seems to be something arbitrary about taking the ages 50 to 74. I hope that we shall not become hooked on that bracket, and just use statistics from that bracket, which have an artificiality about them. Nevertheless, it helps us to focus on certain issues. The first upon which I should like to spend just a moment or two is the question of the right attitude to older people. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has just said that we must not consider those people as people to be pitied.
It is strange how terminology often gives away our fundamental attitudes. We tend to talk about older people as being dependants, as are children, as though independence is the real, full humanity, and dependants are, to that extent, weaker and substandard. Surely the reality is that everyone is interdependent. We are all individuals, but we are all interdependent. Many so-called dependent people, like many handicapped people, have a major and positive contribution to make. Those of us who have handicapped people in our families, recognise that it is not a question of some people being handicapped and others not, we recognise that we are all handicapped; it is just that handicaps take different forms. Some people can be handicapped by slowness of mind and movement while others can be handicapped by quickness of tongue and temper. All of us are interdependent and have particular contributions to make.
Older people in the third age have a much better perspective of time. They are not so "busy-bodying", bustling and pre-occupied with trying to do too much. In 1855 Gladstone advised his son:
"We should deal with our time as we see a grocer deal with tea and sugar, or a haberdasher with stuffs and ribands: weighing or measuring it out in proportions adjusted to that we are to get for and by it".
That was of course before the days of supermarkets. It indicates the way in which those of an older age group
1422
can produce a measured wisdom. By being the kind of people they are they give a surer perspective in relation to our tendency to busyness.
The Carnegie Report rightly focuses on the many activities open to people in the third age. It is also a time when people ask themselves fundamental questions about meaning and achievement and about worth and the purpose of life. We should encourage people in the latter part of their lives to feel good about life, to be grateful for it and to recognise that it has worth. I say do that; it can help people of other age groups to be more positive and less critical and questioning.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the opportunities for continuing learning. I know that many other countries have a University of the Third Age. I understand that the concept originated in France and now there are 160 Universities in Europe, mostly for people who have retired from paid employment. We have our Open University. I am not convinced that we want a University of the Third Age because a great deal can be gained by mature students being present with younger students. The interaction between them can be immensely beneficial.
The Carnegie Report looks at the opportunities across the board for adult learning. It rightly calls for the monitoring of some of the recent changes in our adult education pattern. Some of us expressed anxieties about that during debates on the Further and Higher Education Bill. I note that the Carnegie Report calls for funding procedures which will foster provision for older adult learners. I was glad to read that. Encouraging people of all ages to continue their education, formally or informally, could be a stimulus not only to them but to education as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, spoke in particular about volunteering. It is from this age group that we naturally look for voluntary carers, voluntary workers for charity and so forth. This is an enormous resource in our society. There is no fear that volunteers will replace paid employees but they could supplement and extend their work. It is slightly disappointing to note that there are not more volunteers from this age group. Page 83 of the Carnegie Report indicates that unless people volunteer earlier in life they will hesitate to give voluntary service in later years. That underlines the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, about the importance of encouraging employers to allow their employees to undertake voluntary work.
I wonder whether our society has increasingly put a cash value on everything, including service and care. Perhaps that occurred because we were too readily supposing that there were unlimited financial resources for everything. But if one puts a cash value on everything, including caring for other people, that could lead people to believe, although it should not do so, that nothing is worthwhile unless it is paid for and that no service is worth doing unless you are paid for it. However inadvertently, that can discourage voluntary work. We need to think much more carefully about the need to encourage voluntary work among people in younger age groups so that those who have more time at their disposal can give even more. In doing that they can

1423
find immense fulfilment and a real purpose and can discover the need for further education and the value of it.
It seems to me that we have in this Third Age a growing resource which could benefit society. For that reason I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for giving us the opportunity to study this wide-ranging report. Much of it ought to be studied in the years to come.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I echo those who have said that it is a great mistake to categorise people by age to the extent that it has been done in this report and in this debate. I take great exception to the cut-off age of 74, and there are other noble Lords in the Chamber who might agree with me. But we like to put labels on people. While I have the opportunity I shall get another objection off my chest. I strongly object to being called a senior citizen. No one talks about junior citizens. I do not mind being called an old woman because that is a statement of fact, but I shall not put up with being called a senior citizen.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject and wish to pick up some of the important and interesting points that have been made. I begin in particular with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, about conflicts which may arise in dealing with this issue. Of course there are conflicts, but what is beneficial to people in their older years can be of great direct benefit to society as a whole. It need not be in conflict with the other objectives that we are pursuing or with the solutions to other problems that we are confronting.
I turn in particular to the aspect of employment. I notice that Professor Handy was a member of the Rowntree Committee. He made an important and convincing point: increasingly there will be a relatively small number of people who have what our generation has called "a normal working life" of full-time employment from leaving school or university until retirement but that many people will have what he calls "a portfolio of other jobs", which is a fortunate but slightly pretentious title. It will be made up of part-time and temporary work which, if that could be combined with some form of citizen's income, would be a satisfactory way of dealing with the employment problems of many people. It is what many women, either from choice or perforce, have done for a long time.
The need for a large number of people who can be employed on a part-time basis, which will be economic for employers because that is what they require, can fit in very well with the desires of older people. Surely it is the experience of us all that when people are reaching retirement age they do not want to work full-time until the age of 60 or 65 and then to stop dead. In too many cases that has been a literal description of what has happened. Most people want gradual retirement. They want the opportunity to change to part-time work earlier than the formal retirement age so that there is not a sharp break between being part of the world of work and being pushed outside to be on their own. Since that is the way
1424
we are going, surely we should seize this opportunity and plan so that we can make and develop schemes which give us the best possible opportunity of making it work.
That leads on to the point about the "trainability" of old people. Many years ago it was thought that one was quite incapable of learning anything after a comparatively early age. When I went into industry I was told—and the unions and everybody else believed it—that you could not take on a woman to be a stitcher over the age of 20. Come the war, we employed grandmothers as stitchers, and very good they were. It is farcical to believe that older people cannot learn new things.
It is at least 25 years since the Belbins in Cambridge demonstrated that old dogs, and for that matter old bitches, can learn new tricks, but they have to be taught in rather different ways. Given proper teaching and training methods, the learning capacity of older people is now beyond question.
A considerable help towards the desire of people for part-time work and gradual retirement to dovetail in with the needs of industry and the economy would be a decade of retirement. The idea that there is a particular age at which you retire is not only inappropriate for the requirements of today but also emphasises an approach to the whole question which is just the approach that we should get rid of; namely, that you go on in what is wrongly regarded as normal employment until a certain age and then you disappear off the scene and, with any luck, disappear out of everybody's way. That is not the way it will be and it is not the way that it should be.
There are plenty of opportunities for seizing the chance that part-time work can give. It is a case of going through the legislation and looking at ways in which quite small alterations could make those desirable developments very much better.
Other noble Lords have referred to the Bill to prevent discrimination on grounds of age in employment, which the late Lady Phillips took through your Lordships' House. She did not ask for anything very extensive but merely that people should at least be given the opportunity to reach the interview stage because it was to be prohibited to ask for the date of birth on an application form. While the date of birth is on the application form in times of unemployment, anybody involved in employment who wishes to reduce the application list is all too tempted to cut out people if they are above a certain age. That means that there is no opportunity for people even to reach the starting point of a job.
A task which I believe your Lordships' House should undertake is to go through the relevant legislation to see where quite small adjustments—in some cases they would not be small but in others they would—could make it easier for older people to obtain jobs, to stay in jobs and to receive training. A revival of the Bill proposed by Lady Phillips is surely long overdue and is a matter to which we should give immediate attention.
However, we are not concerned only with employment, important and central though I believe that to be. I am quite sure that it is keeping going which

1425
keeps people going. The fact that your Lordships' House has such a record of longevity I have no doubt has something to do with that.
There are other issues, matters and ways in which the Government could help directly by taking action which would not be difficult for them to take; for example, providing jobs for older people which meet publicly recognised needs. Many older retired people have skills or knowledge of some kind which could be extremely useful if an attempt were made to use it. The right reverend Prelate referred to the University of the Third Age in other countries. There is a flourishing organisation in this country which calls itself the University of the Third Age. It is run by people who contribute voluntarily lectures and programmes which they are able to give from their knowledge, expertise and previous careers. It is a very active and thriving undertaking. There are a great many examples of its work. It is extremely strong in London but it exists also in other parts of the country.
Among those people, there are a number whose skills could be tapped to meet urgent needs at the present time. Those of us who have had anything to do with teaching know that there are many people for whom one-to-one teaching is of enormous value in achieving results. That was shown, was it not, in the literacy campaign? On a voluntary basis a great deal of literacy work was done with individual people coaching individual illiterate persons until they reached a level of literacy. We know that among our school-leavers and adult population there are still far too many illiterate, innumerate people. If we could harness the skills of older people on a one-to-one basis to coach those people, we should achieve very good results.
The same applies to languages. Among the University of the Third Age people, there are a number who came to this country as immigrants whose mother tongue is not English. Their abilities could be harnessed for teaching languages on a one-to-one or small-group basis where that knowledge is needed urgently. We must realise that if we are to penetrate not only the European markets but markets throughout the world, we must improve our language competence. A trawl through to find people who could give help with the learning of languages and with passing on their skills and knowledge would be a way in which those older people could increase their incomes and which would give them something very valuable to do. Moreover, it would meet needs with which we need to deal urgently.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, thought that I should say something about carers. As he pointed out, there are a large number of carers in the older age group. There is no doubt that their needs are acute and immediate. They call for immediate action. Of course, it is not quite nine months since the community care programme came into being, but, not surprisingly, there are already signs that there are weaknesses in the present scheme. If the Government are serious about helping people in the older age groups, it is important that they should look at what is going on.
I speak as the president of the Carers National Association and the president of the National Council
1426
for Domiciliary Services. Both of those organisations are deeply concerned about the limitations which still apply to the working of community care. The Carers National Association carried out a survey of 3,000 people. It has found that in far too many cases the advice which is being given is based not on an assessment of what is needed but on an assessment of what the local authority can afford at the time. We realise that all needs cannot be met, but the carers are asking—and cannot this be put across?—that the assessment should be based on what is needed. It should then be possible to work out what can be afforded. Far too often a package of help is presented which is not necessarily what the people concerned want.
I have an interesting example in which a man who was looking after his invalid wife wanted a home help, by which he meant someone who would help with the cleaning and washing up. However, he was offered instead someone who would bath his wife, whereas his wife preferred that he should bath her. Indeed, what they both wanted was someone not to wash her but to wash the floor. The system is so rigid that you can have someone you do not want to bath your wife but you cannot have someone to wash the dishes. It should not be difficult to alter. Of course, one would like more money put into the system, but at the very least we are asking that the available money should be spent in a way that is most suitable to meet the needs of the person and not in a way that fits the pattern that the local authority thinks appropriate.
I have one further point to make about the carers' issue. There was a very valuable attempt in another place to pass legislation to ensure that people offering private domiciliary care services were registered so that standards could be maintained. However, that Bill fell. It is vital that that should be done. The good private organisations offering such care want to be registered. The whole area is a happy hunting ground for cowboys. I am not saying that there are a great many of them, but people can offer domiciliary services to those needing care who are not in a position to protest about it if they do not like it. Such people can easily become the victims of a most undesirable —although no doubt small—group of people who are exploiting the situation. Registration such as that which the Member of the other place tried to introduce needs to be put in place so that the people involved can be inspected.
The two points that I have mentioned on community care represent action that the Government can take here and now to ensure that the desires and needs of the carers are looked at first. I underline the fact that I am not asking for more money—although perhaps that is the case. But with the given resources, the importance of registering people should be reconsidered. After all, they are going into the homes of other people who are vulnerable and in a very weak position to protest. I have tried to talk about the broader issues and also about the immediate action that the Government can take here and now if they take the problem seriously.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as other speakers have done, I should like first to thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for introducing a debate on such an important subject. I should, perhaps, explain that I am myself a member—a relatively new one—of the advisory committee established to follow up the recommendations made in the report. I believe it is quite important that that has been done. It shows that the intention is to try to follow through what has been recommended in the report.
My noble friend Lord Stallard explained what the third age is. The report identifies it as a new phenomenon. The increase in healthy life expectancy has been, as the report says, one of the greatest achievements of this century. When the state pension was first introduced in 1908 on a means-tested basis for those over 70, it was intended to provide for a very short period between 70 and death. The period then was very short. Indeed, I believe that only a relative minority of people actually reached the age of 70 at that time. In 1911, there were about 900,000 people qualified for that pension, whereas today we have 10 million state pensioners.
The report identifies the third age as people between the ages of 50 and 74. I have some sympathy with the remarks of some noble Lords who believe that it is all rather arbitrary. Nevertheless, it is an attempt to identify a major stage of life which now nearly everyone experiences. It is a time which can either be fulfilling and enjoyable—with children now reaching adulthood and no longer requiring support and with, perhaps, a lifestyle already established —or it can be one of decline and depression, with concerns growing about loss of income, loss of status possibly arising from job loss and concerns about health. Unfortunately, far too many of our fellow citizens appear to fall in that second category.
However, people in the categories covered by the report have a great deal to offer. Almost every speaker in the debate has made that point. The argument advanced in the report is that to disregard the potential would be a disaster both economically and socially. But the report also says that changes are needed in policy, attitude and behaviour. The report is enormously comprehensive, covering a wide range of issues. But I should like to concentrate on just three aspects, all of which are of particular concern to me.
First, there is employment. We all know that age discrimination takes place in employment. For example, I know from my own experience of cases where so-called voluntary redundancy has involved persuading people who do not want to retire to do so on an early pension. They will often feel that it is somehow not right for them to have jobs when other younger people do not have them. Sometimes employers have made mistakes in getting rid of older, experienced employees.
There is also the practice of advertising jobs with an age cap. Several speakers this evening made reference to my late friend Lady Phillips, who is unfortunately no longer with us. I well remember the attempt that she made in this House to get her Private Member's Bill, which would have outlawed such age discrimination, on
1428
to the statute book. She was successful in this Chamber, but I understand that the Bill made no further progress in the other place. Had Lady Phillips been with us this evening, I am sure that she would have been a participant in the debate.
The kind of discrimination that we have been discussing means that once many older people have lost their jobs the only prospect is of long-term unemployment. That is demoralising for them, leads them more quickly towards bad health and involves more costs for the NHS than would otherwise have been the case. Incidentally, when talking about long-term unemployment, I should like to say how concerned I am about the Government's proposal in that regard. I refer to the proposal that, in future, unemployment pay will cease as of right after six months and, thereafter, people will be dependent upon income support, with all that that means if there is a partner who is earning.
Much more could be done to utilise the skills and experience of older people. The section of the report on health clearly shows that those who enjoy good health in the older age groups are those who have retained the ability to participate fully in society, often by means of paid employment but also through voluntary or charitable work of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Murray referred.
There is a set of recommendations for government. It is interesting that, while reference is made to the legislative approach involved in, say, Lady Phillips' Bill, the report favours a voluntary approach—at least in the beginning. One option suggested is that the Government should adopt a policy of eliminating wage discrimination except where specifically justified and that that should be backed up by a code of practice. It is suggested that when that occurs it should be monitored and that legislation should only follow if the voluntary approach does not work. That seems to me to be a sensible approach. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about that particular recommendation.
Secondly, I turn to the whole question of pension provision, so ably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I almost referred to him as my noble friend, and I would really mean that—the noble Lord was chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board when I was a new recruit to that body. I am glad that the signals from government recently appear to indicate that they do not intend—at least, for the time being—to touch the basic state pension. That pension forms the largest part of the income of about two-thirds of current pensioners—although this may change as people increasingly retire on occupational pensions—which covers about 11 million people at the present time. Nevertheless, many occupational pensions are based on the assumption that everyone will have a first-tier state pension.
Although there does not appear at present to be any thought of eroding that, I should like to point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, already has, that it means a great deal less in relation to wages than it once did. The commitment to increase it in line with the RPI rather than the wages index, which was the original intention, means that pensioners become progressively

1429
worse off in relation to the working population. Of course the Government have been committed to the promotion of individual personal pensions. I have always agreed that there is a place for such provision but, for the bulk of the working population, I believed that they were likely to prove a disastrous mistake. People are almost always better served by remaining in their firm's occupational pension scheme. Many are much better served by remaining in SERPS, the State-Earnings Related Pension Scheme. Indeed for poorer people—those on low wages or in casual employment—public provision was always going to be the only real solution because such people are simply not a commercial proposition so far as the private insurance industry is concerned.
It now transpires that people who have been persuaded out of good occupational pension schemes and into private personal pensions are beginning to realise that they have been wrongly advised and have made serious mistakes. I am glad that the Securities and Investment Board has announced that it is undertaking an investigation and is proposing compensation for those who have lost out as a result of pressurised, wrong advice. Of course it is easy to blame the insurance salesmen but salesmen are often put under enormous pressure to sell. Targets are set for them and in some cases they are aware that unless these targets are reached they will be out of a job and will have to join the dole queues, as there is now as much unemployment in the finance sector as everywhere else.
I do not even blame the companies. They are, after all, operating in a highly competitive market and are themselves competitive beasts in the entrepreneurial jungle. No: I blame the Government. They offered national insurance rebates to try to get people out of SERPS and into the private market. They were quite willing to allow good occupational schemes to be undermined in order to promote private personal pensions. As a result millions of people have been sold financial products which are not in their best interests.
I still believe in SERPS: I regret that the Government saw fit to undermine it, although I welcome the extension of the home responsibility allowance to SERPS, as that will help a great many women. However, the fact remains that, whether pension provision is made by the public or the private sector, the economy as a whole has to pay for it. Of course the Government are right to look to the future when there will be increasing numbers of elderly people needing support, but they are making a mistake if they think that this social obligation can be effectively borne by the private sector.
The concept of the original pensions legislation of the mid-seventies was good; namely, the idea of a partnership between the state and good occupational pension provision. That was a good idea but there will be people—and their numbers seem to be increasing—who are in low-paid employment and who move from one employer to another, for whom there is no occupational pension provision and who simply cannot be effectively catered for by private personal pensions. I therefore fully support what the noble Lord, Lord
1430
Allen of Abbeydale, had to say about this. I wonder whether those in Government who were responsible for this disaster can sleep peacefully at night in view of what they have done to what was essentially a good pension structure which provided for poorer people. It has been undermined.
Thirdly, I wish to touch on that section of the report dealing with education, training and learning. The report argues that we need to take a completely fresh look at the way in which people of all ages are educated and trained. We can no longer look at these processes as stages we go through at the beginning of life: the business of learning has to be lifelong. The report urges that we should set in place systems of lifelong education and training which would mark us out as an advanced economy. All this will of course need a government initiative and appropriate funding. But the UK has taken innovative steps before. I think that one of the enduring monuments to the administration of my noble friend Lord Wilson was the Open University, which enabled large numbers of people, including many older people, who had missed out on education earlier in life to secure qualifications. If we are to give people in the older age groups the opportunity of self-fulfilling activity later in life, a positive approach must be made to ensure that the facilities are available.
Employers, too, should develop positive policies towards older workers and should put age onto the equal opportunities agenda as well as race and gender. I am glad to say that the report also acknowledges the contributions that unions can make in this as in other areas. The unions have a good track record as regards co-operation in training and employment schemes.
I have chosen to concentrate on those aspects of the report with which I am most concerned personally, but it has an enormous amount of material in it covering other aspects of third age living. There is a section on health, which, as I have already indicated, reaches the not surprising conclusion, among others, that the active and involved stay healthier longer. Activity is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has said. It is important in keeping people involved and healthy.
There is a section on citizenship which draws attention, rightly, to the often negative images of the elderly with which we are faced in the media. That applies to people in the older age groups and not just to the elderly. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has indicated, there is—and this is important—a section on caring. Many people —I believe they are mostly women—find themselves, in their 50s and 60s, caring for older relatives. There are many other aspects of life for people in the third age, including leisure, travel, the effect of crime and other matters which are dealt with in this excellent report. I hope the Government will give it serious study and that its many recommendations will perhaps be enacted in some form or even be reflected in some kind of legislation.
8.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for drawing your Lordships' attention to the

1431
importance of the Carnegie Inquiry into the Third Age. The final report of the inquiry—Life, Work and Livelihood in the Third Age—is a detailed and wide-ranging document. There are now 14 million people in the UK between the ages of 50 and 75 who can regard themselves as "third agers". They are an enormously important section of our society. No one should underestimate the contribution those in the third age make to society and to our national wellbeing. But, as the report identifies, they also have particular needs and concerns. Fundamental is the need for financial security. And the need for financial security in retirement becomes ever more important as people live longer and continue to want to play an active part in society. The inquiry is now being followed up by the Carnegie Trust through the Carnegie Third Age Programme. Its aim will be to take forward the recommendations of the report over the course of the next three years.
The Government welcome the debate the Third Age Programme seeks to promote. How to enable "third agers" to maintain and prolong a healthy, active life and to contribute to society are important issues. But action to change attitudes, to improve educational and job opportunities, to improve financial security is not the role of government alone. As the report acknowledges, employers, trades unions, local authorities, voluntary organisations, providers of health and education each have a contribution to make.
I would like to comment on a number of issues raised in the report. I shall turn first to pension provision. The Third Age Programme wishes to promote a debate on pension provision. I endorse this proposal. It is precisely the sort of open public debate that we want to encourage. The Government's policy is clear. We want to encourage individuals to take responsibility for their post-retirement income, with a choice between different means of doing so and with sufficient knowledge and understanding to plan and choose sensibly. We want people to have confidence in the framework and institutions within which pensions are provided. We want to expand and consolidate the partnership between state and private provision. And we want to see a thriving pensions industry which is strong, diverse, and internationally competitive.
The Government have made considerable progress towards these objectives. The scope for individuals to take control of their own pension arrangements was enormously increased by the 1986 Social Security Act. The consequences for pensioners' living standards are clearly apparent. More people are retiring with occupational pension rights. Some 69 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have an occupational pension, and those rights are becoming more valuable.
However, it has always been of the utmost importance that pension rights should be secure. The report rightly emphasises that. Your Lordships will not need reminding of the death of Robert Maxwell and the consequent collapse of his business empire and the pension schemes linked to it. Enormous difficulties resulted for those directly affected, difficulties which led to rapid and significant help from the Government. The problems faced by the Maxwell pensioners led to
1432
questions being asked much more widely about the adequacy of the governance of pension schemes and the regulatory framework within which they operate.
The Government were determined to restore confidence in the security of pension schemes. In June last year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security set up the Pension Law Review Committee under Professor Goode to look at all of these questions. The group was given very broad terms of reference to allow it to explore the issues thoroughly. The committee presented its report at the end of September and the report was immediately published.
In a Statement in another place on 3rd November my right honourable friend the Secretary of State expressed his gratitude to Professor Goode and the committee and described the report as important work in the development of pension law well into the next century and beyond.
The Goode Report is an immensely thorough and comprehensive piece of work. It demands full and thorough consideration, and that is exactly what the Government intend it to receive. To help in that process my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has arranged for the publication of a series of discussion papers on the issues raised by the Goode Committee. The first five papers in the series have now been issued. Their purpose is to identify the issues on which we need advice and help from the pensions industry and others, including and especially those who represent the interests of scheme members themselves. We have made those papers available to the Third Age Programme Committee.
As the pension system changes, so does people's need for information. Individuals' choices must be based on a sound understanding of the options open to them. Consumers must have the facts they need in order to make informed choices. There is clearly still a long way to go. Research findings published as part of the Goode Report showed a general reluctance to think of pensions and widespread ignorance about details of occupational pension schemes. The Government are eager to pursue ways of ensuring that individuals are given relevant advice in a form which they understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, asked me about the SIB review of pension transfers. The Government are satisfied that the programme of action announced by the Securities and Investments Board is an appropriate way of tackling anxieties raised by evidence of poor compliance with rules on selling personal pensions. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has made it clear to the SIB that concerns about compliance must be fully and properly investigated to determine the extent of any problems. The extent of poor advice is not yet clear. Nor is it clear whether any investors have been disadvantaged. The SIB's initiative will help establish to what extent remedial action is called for. Once the SIB has completed its investigation, we expect the regulators, together with the life insurance industry, to deliver prompt and effective remedies in cases where investor protection has been inadequate and to define standards for future personal pension sales.

1433
The evidence of poor compliance with rules on selling practice is confined to cases where investors have transferred from or opted out of an occupational pension scheme. In due course the SIB will undertake further work on the sale of personal pensions to people contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme, although the chairman of the SIB has made it clear that he has no evidence of systematic compliance problems in that area. Current personal pension investors need not take precipitate action. If individuals have any questions about their personal pensions they should get in touch with the pension provider. The Government expect remedies to be put in place for all investors who have been disadvantaged as a result of poor advice.
Personal pensions remain an excellent way of saving for an income in retirement, offering flexibility and choice to those who take them out in the appropriate circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, implied that low interest rates mean that pensioners' savings will diminish and they will receive less income. It is important to remember that the lower rates of interest in recent years have been accompanied by much lower rates of inflation. Returns on savings have remained higher than inflation, thus protecting pensioners' capital and the real value of their income, unlike, for example, between 1974 and 1979, when high inflation all but wiped out many pensioners' savings. My right honourable friend the Chancellor also introduced a new savings bond for older people in his recent Budget Statement.
Although I have spoken of how we want to encourage people to make their own provision for retirement, I must make it clear that we are committed to the retention of the basic state pension as the foundation stone of financial provision for retirement. We are pledged to maintain the value of the basic pension, as we have since 1979. Basic pensions have risen in real terms since then. We shall continue to focus additional resources on the safety net of income-related benefits to help the less well off pensioners and those without other income.
The Carnegie Report rightly draws attention to poverty in old age. However, we have a good record. Since 1988 we have provided extra help above the normal upratings to pensioners on income-related benefits amounting to around £1 billion a year. Of course we announced a widely welcomed and significant increase in the basic state pension to help all pensioners with the extra cost of VAT on fuel.
I should say something about the state pension age. The Government have made a clear commitment to end the present inequality in state pension age, and we have recently published a White Paper, Equality in State Pension Age, which announces our decision to equalise the state pension age at 65, the change to start in the year 2010 and to be fully in place by 2020.
We believe that 65 is the right choice. It recognises women's changed role in the workplace. Women now represent 50 per cent. of the labour force and unequal treatment has been outlawed at work. People are living
1434
longer, healthier lives, drawing their pensions for four years longer on average than they did in Beveridge's time. That means an increasing proportion of elderly people to be supported by the working population of the day. With pensions spending set to double in the next century, it is essential to take measures now which will make the balance of support easier to sustain.
We also plan other changes which will significantly improve the retirement incomes of many people—mainly women—with family and caring responsibilities and people with disabilities. In particular, we have confirmed our intention to extend home responsibilities protection to the state earnings-related pension. That will significantly improve many women's retirement incomes. I am sure that that change will be welcomed.
I should now turn to the three other important issues referred to in the report: education, employment and health provision in the third age. There is much to welcome in the report and we agree that age should be no barrier to learning. One of the most important messages is that, if people are to be flexible in their approach to work and life, they need a solid foundation of basic skills on which to build. Literacy and numeracy are important, yet some 5.5 million adults have problems with those basic skills. The Government have now included basic skills courses within the responsibilities of the new Further Education Funding Council.
I also welcome the reference in the report to the importance of distance learning opportunities for those in their third age. We need flexible approaches to learning, particularly for adults who were not able to take full advantage of the schools system and for whom the prospect of returning to any kind of formal education may be far from attractive. The Government have urged the Further Education Funding Council to encourage distance learning. Our spending plans for the new further education sector imply an increase in the number of students, including older students, of 25 per cent. by the year 1995–96.
If the resource represented by people in their third age is to be fully utilised it is necessary to consider the issues relating to employment. I should make it clear that those issues include: for society, an economy that generates real jobs and provides an adequate level of support for those unable to provide for themselves; for all employers, in the face of increasing competition, the need to follow the lead of the best and abandon age discrimination; and, for individuals, the freedom, ability and responsibility to compete for work on merit, regardless of their age.
Older people have a wealth of skills and experience to offer. But all too many employers continue to discriminate simply on age grounds by setting age bars in recruitment and refusing to promote or train older workers. Whether conscious or unconscious, such discrimination makes no economic sense. I am sure your Lordships will agree that overcoming age discrimination in employment is clearly one of the key issues that we must address. There is widespread evidence that employment discrimination occurs. We recognise that it is wasteful for the economy as well as harmful to the individuals.

1435
The Government have set up an Advisory Group on Older Workers chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Employment Department. Its 11 members bring expertise from employers, the recruitment industry, personnel management, race relations, trade unions, and organisations campaigning for older people. With the help of that group, we are determined to persuade employers that it is in their own best interests to abandon age discrimination now. We expect that the group will receive regular reports on what TECs, LECs and the Employment Service are providing for older workers.
We recently launched a continuing campaign which offers five practical steps employers can take to select, develop, promote and retrain people on merit, regardless of age. Through the advisory group, the Employment Department plans to produce guidance for employers, building on the five steps, giving practical advice on what to do and setting out the benefits to them of doing so.
Unemployment, especially if coupled with age discrimination, can be a source of real frustration. Those who want to work are entitled to the best help possible. Already the full range of back to work help is open to all those looking for work. That includes access to vacancies, job search, job-winning skills, and vocational training. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that from April that help will be available up to the age of 63. That is offered through over 1,000 Employment Service Jobcentres and 82 training and enterprise councils up and down the country. Through the promotion of Investors in People we are persuading employers that to be successful they must develop their staff, regardless of age.
Turning to health matters, the Government's aim is to reduce avoidable illness and disability in later life by positive programmes of health education and sickness prevention. In the words of the World Health Organisation, we want not only to "add years to life", but to "add life to years".
Much work is being done to examine the health of older people in great detail, to inform our future public health strategies for later life. The White Paper Health of the Nation, published last year, took for the first time a long-term view of avoidable illness. Key areas of cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, accidents and mental illness are all particularly relevant to older people. The paper has also identified the health of older people as a key area for future development and research.
Work on this has already begun. We are determined to keep the health of older people at the top of the policy agenda. We aim to increase for people after the age of 65 the years of life that are free from disease and disability. We have commissioned an important piece of research to enable us to identify more accurately the major risk factors.
Among initiatives which the Government are supporting in this area is a three-year programme by Age Concern. The overall aim is to give older people access to information, advice and support which will enable them to make choices about enjoying a healthier lifestyle and increased years free from disability.
1436
The report stresses how important it is that carers receive practical help and support services to lighten the burden of caring. Carers are at the very heart of our community care reforms, and one of the key aims of those reforms is to promote the development of support services for carers and improved respite care. Local authorities and health authorities are expected to provide an appropriate range of support services for carers. The £565 million which will be made available in 1993–94 to local authorities as a ring-fenced special transitional grant for their new community care responsibilities will enable them to provide more support to carers. For 1994–95, the special transitional grant will be £736 million. In addition, the reforms give local authorities an increased incentive to provide adequate support for carers, as a means of ensuring that people can be cared for in the community rather than in residential care or in nursing homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked me about the need to help carers who are in employment. We are keenly aware of how valuable it is to a large number of carers to be able to obtain or keep a paid job, both from the financial point of view and because it gives them an interest outside their caring responsibilities. Recently we have been looking at ways of helping carers who are in employment. The additional day services which the community care reforms seek to develop will clearly help. In addition, in March this year the Department of Health held a seminar attended by carers and employers to discuss ways in which employers can help their staff who are carers to overcome the problems they face in combining regular employment with caring responsibilities. A report of the seminar has been published and distributed widely. The Department of Health has also provided funding towards the cost of a further series of seminars on the subject being held by the carers national association and the Industrial Society. The objective of those initiatives is to spread good practice among employers, which helps carers on their staff.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a number of points about caring. I have taken careful note of them. It is important to say that the community care reforms should ensure that services are more sensitive and responsive to users' and carers' needs. First, an assessment is conducted involving social care professionals and, if appropriate, health workers and other professionals. From that, an integrated package of care should be designed. The user and the carer should be involved in the assessment. The local authority should then commission services, using the private sector where appropriate. The contract made should ensure the quality of the services provided. Those reforms are quite new. They will take some time to settle down.
It is significant that the debate should take place this year, which is the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations. Throughout the year both my department and the Department of Health have been working closely with our opposite numbers in other member states, with non-governmental agencies and with the Commission to promote the exchange of experience and good practice on issues which affect older people.

1437
It has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am conscious that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House speaking in the debate who is a second ager (if I may use that term). I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the age differentials are somewhat arbitrary. However, all ages play an important part. Indeed all ages play an important part in your Lordships' House. I remember taking my seat in your Lordships' House in my first age. I became a Minister in my second age. I have eight years to go to my third age. Since becoming a Minister, I have spent many hours debating with the fourth age. I am sure that the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will still be entertaining your Lordships in his fifth age.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the noble Viscount is falling into precisely the trap against which we have warned him. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is firmly in the third age; and long may he remain there.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, having listened to and debated many times across the Chamber with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I am firmly of the opinion that the noble Lord is somewhere between the first and second age. He certainly has not reached the third age.
The report has reinforced the need to pay more attention to the needs of the huge untapped resource of older adults. We owe it to them and to ourselves to ensure that we all create the right environment in which those in the third age can continue to make a full and fulfilling contribution to our society.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all those who have taken part in what I consider to have been an enjoyable and interesting debate. It is true that there were some criticisms, in particular of the age range. The report pointed out that there is a difficulty in giving a precise definition. We ought not to put too much importance on the figures of 50 to 74. What we were trying to say was, "Here is a valuable resource, not a demographic time-bomb, an economic problem or a burden, but a resource." It must be organised, and we have to plan for the organisation of that resource. That came through too as a general opinion across the Chamber, and it is always good to receive cross-Chamber support and agreement on issues as important as this one.
I wish to thank the Minister for his winding up speech, especially the parts with which I agreed. I shall say no more about the other parts until we come to the next debate on the implementation proposals that come from the third age programme. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Community Service Orders
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with progress on the development of community service orders.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that we are all happy to see the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, back in fighting form in the front line. He has defended many positions in this House, sometimes contradictory, but he has always defended them with charm and much parliamentary skill. I hope that tonight he will have an easier task than he sometimes does.
I believe that everyone will agree that it is high time we had a debate on community service orders. The truth is that this is a rather elusive subject. Many years ago I wrote a little book on humility. I met an Anglican bishop and explained that I was writing a book on humility. He said: "Humility? A very elusive subject", and he vanished before I could look round. It is an elusive subject and that is why there are not many speakers tonight, although those we have are of the highest quality.
It is hard to examine and investigate community service orders. I have tried more intensively recently but over the years I have tried hard. It is much easier to investigate prisons, schools, or even the House of Lords; any institution is easier than going round seeing what a few people may be up to, whether they are useful or whether they are being spoilt. It is hard and therefore it is high time we had this debate.
I begin by quoting a short extract from the foreword written by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, to a booklet produced to celebrate 20 years of community service. I shall quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor:
"Since its introduction in 1973, the community service order has grown to be one of the most durable and effective sentencing options available to the court".
He went on to say:
"In 1992 43,000 community service orders were made; 10 per cent. of the total of all sentences and 13 per cent. of the sentences [passed] by the Crown Court".
So we can start from there. The order has become an important part of our penal system in the past 20 years.
I take the opportunity to say—and old friends of Lady Wootton will agree with me when they read this—that more credit goes to her than to any other individual because she was chairman of the crucial committee which produced the recommendation which led to the setting up of community service.
I do not believe that anyone would quarrel with what was claimed in the book to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, wrote the introduction. It stated that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 made significant changes to the sentences framework in regard to community service orders. I do not think that anyone will disagree that the 1991 Act placed increasing emphasis on the use of community service orders. That is where we begin, and it has developed over the 20 years. But since 1991, new emphasis has been placed on the Act which has so often been defended in all its comings and goings by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I offer that comment tonight

1439
and I shall make the point rather too often in my brief remarks. Can we take it that the emphasis has not been changed?
I cherish a dream of a time when community service will figure much more largely than now in our penal arrangements. In my dream, I see thousands of people who would now be sent to prison doing community service. Noble Lords may say: "How will that be done without interfering with ordinary employment, public or private?" That is a real question which will arise when the time comes, but it is a long way off. I am assured by everyone who knows anything about it that at present there is no great difficulty in finding community work which does not interfere with what would otherwise be commercial work.
I am told that it is estimated that one could double the amount of community service without interference, but the time will come when it will be a great issue. It is not, however, the issue I raise tonight. I am making a more modest claim, simply asking the noble Earl to reassure us, to allow us to go away believing that the emphasis on community service in the 1991 Act will be maintained. It may be asked: "Why should it not be? It was in the 1991 Act which was passed by a great Conservative Government, why should they not stick to the Act?" I am afraid that since it was passed we have had the emergence of Mr. Howard. I wish to be careful because I called him "The Prince of Darkness" last time I spoke and I shall not say anything worse about him tonight. I shall not be extravagant in my criticism of him. However, he has introduced a new emphasis in penal policy. No one doubts that Mr. Howard has done that. At the Conservative Party Conference, I believe that he received hysterical applause; there, at last, was a man who would get tough with criminals and that was what they wanted. Mr. Howard did not actually say that criminals should be hanged and flogged, but no doubt many people would have been delighted if he had said it.
At any rate, no one can doubt that Mr. Howard has introduced a new emphasis in relation to penal policy. If anyone does doubt it, he or she may look at what I quoted in an earlier debate; I shall not dwell on it. It is an article written by a gentleman who was in charge of the most relevant department of the Home Office for many years and who resigned in 1992. He said that there had been a complete reversal of policy; that is, the policy defended with such eloquence by the noble Earl over recent years. We have had at least five Home Secretaries in five years and, so far as I remember, the noble Earl waxed equally eloquent about them all.
Now we have Mr. Howard, a new broom with a new emphasis. The Times was, of course, pleased about it and said that there had been a new emphasis and so much the better. The newspaper thought that it discredited the 1991 Act. I hope and believe that that is not what the noble Earl will tell us tonight.
Thus, we must pin our hopes on the possibility that in that area at least Mr. Howard will not introduce a new policy but will stick to the policy that the noble Earl has defended so well over the years.
Have I any reason to be suspicious? Of course, Mr. Howard's speech at the Conservative Party Conference
1440
aroused great suspicion among everyone concerned with penal reform, including judges who were not previously regarded as penal reformers. They, together with prison governors, probation officers, social workers and prison officers were horrified by Mr. Howard's speech at that conference. One of the worst and most shocking things he said was—and he has his admirers no doubt—that prison worked. That is anyway disquieting, but he went on to indicate that he looked forward—I shall not say with pleasure, but with equanimity—to a large increase in the number of people in prison. Are we to take that as being due to the fact that he stood for a more effective policy of prosecution?
One cannot object in principle to that. One objective is the desire to prosecute guilty people more effectively, so I leave out that aspect. But is it due to the fact that under Mr. Howard's scenario perhaps thousands more people would be sent to prison who would otherwise have done community service? Is that the position? I am entitled to put that question to the noble Earl, who had full notice and knows exactly what I am going to say. He has therefore had time for consultation. He may even had had time to have a word or two with the great Mr. Howard. I do not know whether that is possible in these difficult times. Will that policy of having more people in prison mean fewer people being sentenced to community service?
Here I must become a little theoretical. Thirty years ago I wrote a small book called The Idea of Punishment. I have always been interested in the theory of sentencing—one might say too interested, since in England people have a distrust of theoreticians. I distinguished then the four recognised (traditional) elements in a just punishment: prevention, which means keeping people locked up so that they cannot do anybody any harm while they are in prison; reform; deterrence; and retribution. No doubt reparation should also be added to the list. It has been to some extent added since, but to an inadequate extent. Those traditional ideas are still basic to my thinking, and when I read about this and that sentence, I always ask how those various categories apply. But when it comes to the point, one cannot simply add up those categories. One has to reach a decision; for instance, whether to give Mr. Levitt community service or imprisonment. It is no good looking in the textbooks. In the end a practical decision has to be made. Nevertheless, I believe that those elements lie behind a just settlement.
How does community service come out in relation to those elements? I believe that it can be fairly argued—and I shall in a moment suggest—that community service scores heavily under the heading of reform. On the whole, people are more likely to be made better people than if they went to prison. Nothing of that sort can be proved conclusively. Nothing ever can be. But all the evidence (which I cannot summarise now) points that way. So community service scores on reform. It also has an element of reparation, if not for the individual, then in work for the community. So it scorer there also. But under all the other headings—prevention (locking people up), deterrence (frightening people off), and retribution (giving them hell because they have behaved very badly)—it might be thought to be too soft.
Therefore, if we are discussing this matter seriously—and this might be the beginning of many discussions of community service—we have to ask ourselves whether community service is too soft an option. I do not say anything about the merits of the decision, but when Mr. Levitt was given community service there was a great outcry. People said that the sentence was too soft and he ought to have had a very much more painful sentence. That can always be argued in any particular case. But I suggest to noble Lords that there are two arguments here (there are three altogether, but two come into one's mind immediately).
There is the argument that some valuable work is done for the community by the offender who is doing community service. I think it could be accepted that he is doing more that is valuable than he would ever do in prison in the like time. That is certainly one argument. I shall not try to press the statistics too hard because I think that all statistics lack coercion, but it seems on the statistics that the benefit is more likely than if the offender goes to prison.
I do not claim that there is any magic in community service. I have talked recently to quite a few people who have done community service about their past, and they would say that it is not a soft option at all. They would say that it is quite hard work. It is particularly painful if one has not done that sort of work before. Although they would say that it is not a soft option, one has to ask oneself what it amounts to. Undoubtedly, here one gets some variation.
The other day I happened to have a long discussion with a young man who had done 200 hours of community service some time ago. He was an educated man who had, as he himself said, become a naughty boy. He was given community service, which he thought he deserved. He enjoyed it. He did painting for various institutions, work which would not otherwise have been done. At the end of the time he was asked to become a supervisor of other people who were doing community service. So in his case it was a success. He said that he knew many other people who would speak in the same way about their community service.
But it is admitted that it does not succeed with everybody. Two-thirds of those who do community service apparently complete their sentence. About one-third do not, and those people must be thought of as the failures of the system. So we have to weigh matters up and ask whether on the whole, and taking any particular case, it will be beneficial to the man and to the community. My conviction comes down strongly in favour of community service when in doubt. I do not say that it is applicable to everybody. I do not for one moment suggest that when somebody has done something absolutely appalling community service is the answer.
I have another very obvious thought: community service is of course very much cheaper. I have been given the figures and I have no reason to doubt them: community service costs £20 a week per head; prison costs £365 a week per head—18 times as much. So community service is obviously very, very much cheaper. We do not want to run our penal treatment on
1442
the cheap. That is not the objective. But assuming that a certain amount of money is allotted—I believe that the Government are not ready to allot enough money to prisons, but that is another issue—we ought to try to find the way of spending it to best advantage.
Last week I attended a memorable press conference at which that great Christian governor, Mr. Joe Whitty, who is soon to retire from Feltham, gave an address which will always stay in my memory. He described the improvements that had been made in Feltham and the ideals that he was working for. We must bear in mind that Feltham has had a worse press than any other prison in the country and has had quite a number of suicides. He emphasised the fact more than once that those ideals could never be realised unless more resources were available. We had a fairly bleak reply from the gentleman who is now Director-General of the Prison Service. (I shall not say anything about his qualifications; that would be another story. In his own way he is a very reputable man.) He explained that there is no more money available.
Let us take that argument for the moment and assume (which I do not accept) that no more money is available for penal work. The question then is: how should it be spent? I submit to the House, and to the Government in particular, that it would be far better for the community if we sent far more people to community service and far fewer people to a prison, where it costs 18 times as much to keep an offender.
Before I close I should like quickly to make just two other points. First, under the Act of 1991—and I am glad to think that there is some controversy here—community service can now be combined with probation. That is a big subject in its own way. Personally I welcome that. On the face of it community service is, as it were, a constructive punishment since it may help the offender and do some good to the community. But it remains a punishment, and it does not involve any positive decisions on the part of anybody for the offender. The offender on probation is befriended and counselled, and if all goes well is very much assisted through the good offices of the probation service to lead a normal life. The combination of those two is an invaluable step forward. I welcome things which have been done, if I may put it that way, long ago by the Government.
Finally I pay my tribute to the probation service. If we say that community service has been a success, as I certainly think it has, that success must be largely attributed to the probation service. I should like that to go on record.
I end where I began. Perhaps I may ask the Minister, the respected Earl Ferrers, a question. Is he ready to assure us that we need not worry, and that the emphasis on the 1991 Act, which led to a 35 per cent. increase in community service sentences in the following year will be maintained; or are the Government going to go back on it? It is a very simple question. I hope that we shall receive not too diplomatic an answer. I hope that we shall get a straightforward answer from the noble Earl.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not intend to range quite so widely as the noble Earl. I wish to say principally that I agree with what he said, especially about the 1991 Act and the probation service. It was well said and well deserved.
I am sure that the House, or what remains of it, will give an extra expression of gratitude to the noble Earl for raising the subject today, especially because, as he mentioned, it was a distinguished member of this House, Lady Wootton of Abinger, as chairman of the old advisory council on the penal system, who was largely responsible for the community service order.
To the best of my recollection, the community service order was introduced originally as a constructive alternative to the fine, especially for the fine defaulter who had no alternative but to default because he was unemployed and had no money except, no doubt, state benefit, from which he could not hope to pay a fine without rendering himself and his family destitute. A prison sentence for a man in those circumstances was hopelessly inappropriate, ineffective and counter-productive as well as being extremely expensive. That was a startling and radical but highly necessary reform which we owe very largely to Lady Wootton of Abinger.
I am happy to say that now the order is much more widely used by both magistrates and the Crown Courts. It is not by any means confined to fine defaulters. I am told that it has now been extended to theft, handling stolen goods, motoring offences, burglary, fraud, forgery and even violence. That is a very good index of how that small acorn has grown into a big tree. However, I have little confidence that my wish, which is that the growth should continue, will be fulfilled. I very much support the noble Earl's plea that the 1991 Act shall not be adversely affected by government policies in this Session.
This very valuable order, which is now 20 years old, is likely to become, if it is not already, a favourite non-custodial disposal available to the courts. I suppose that it is used because it has a greater punitive element than a probation order or the combination order to which the noble Earl referred. It would be a very considerable advance from the original purpose of that kind of order, and no bad thing at all, if it were developed in the future as it has developed over the past and made more use of both by the Crown Courts and by magistrates.
But any such development clearly needs to be monitored and questions asked. In particular, it should be asked whether it is suitable or appropriate for the community service order to encroach on the probation order, for instance, or the combination order. It was originally intended to be an alternative to a sentence of custody, not to be an alternative to a sentence of probation. I should have thought that that ought to be looked at if there is to be any review of the community service order.
I should like to see revived the old advisory council on the penal system. I can think of no better body to monitor the development and make any recommendations. There is an equivalent council for the social
1444
services and it has proved to be immensely valuable in the reports that it gives. I should like to see the old council on the penal system revived for that purpose, to assist the Home Secretary in coming to such conclusions as he may eventually reach. I have little confidence that that wish of mine will be granted, because the present Home Secretary does not seem too keen on taking advice. But I should very much like to hear whether the suggestion that I have just put out might at least be considered by the Home Office.
I should like to see an extension of the use of the community service order because, as the noble Earl said, it is cost effective. My statistic is that it costs £700 for a completed order in the inner London area, which is far cheaper than a custodial sentence. It is much more constructive and much less expensive than prison; and at least in some cases it causes offenders to reform as a result of giving something back to society by means of the order. Unfortunately, it does not do anything to compensate the victim, where there is one. I suppose that a possible but more expensive alternative would be a day's prison or a day at a training centre, which I believe is available to the courts but is not much used.
On the whole, I should leave well alone. The order has proved itself over the years in 20 years of growth and 20 years of acceptance by the courts. I should not like to see its growth impeded in any way. I should allow the system to expand subject to one exception, to which I have already referred; namely, that the community service order should not be used where a probation order would be more suitable. Perhaps the Home Secretary would very kindly give a shove in that direction, if I may dare suggest it.
9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, at this time on a cold night any conceivable popularity a speaker may have in your Lordships' House is speedily dissipated if his speech is overlong, but the subject of the Unstarred Question, to which my noble friend has spoken with his usual sincerity and specialist knowledge is of such importance that I shall, I hope, be forgiven if with reasonable brevity I address myself to a few aspects of community service orders.
We are all worried about the increase in crime, about the preponderance of young offenders in criminal statistics, about recidivism, about overcrowded prisons and about punishment fitting the crime but yet giving the criminal a reasonable chance of rehabilitation. They are issues which have been frequently debated in your Lordships' House. I venture to suggest that community service orders have considerable relevance to each and every one of those matters.
Perhaps I may from this Bench add my tribute to that which was paid by my noble friend Lord Longford to the probation service throughout the country and to all those who have worked with community service, which has had 20 years of real achievement and progress since it was introduced in 1973. It was then an experiment and it has without doubt proved itself. It has provided a very acceptable option in suitable cases for those who have the responsibility of imposing sentences by combining some deprivation of liberty, obtaining a contribution of

1445
useful work for the community and preserving the principle of reparation. They are, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and by my noble friend Lord Longford, cost-effective and effective, too, in other respects.
Last year 72 per cent. of all community service orders were completed satisfactorily, and in the 20 years of the existence of these orders more than 60 million hours have been ordered and worked. It is no wonder that other countries have found these schemes of value. Twelve other European countries and more than 40 countries worldwide now have them. As the Howard League for Penal Reform puts it in an article on the subject:
"It is not a universal answer to crime, but it has earned its place as a valuable part of a rational sentencing policy. It would be unrealistic to suppose that offenders will stop offending simply because of the experience. Mass unemployment and the circumstances in which they live all too often make it depressingly certain that they will be at risk long after the order finishes—but for some it is a sufficiently important experience to have that effect. For others it puts a gap in their offending, helps their growing up and stops the destructive effect which prison so often provides".
And talking of young adult offenders, let us remember that by 1986, 44 per cent. of all orders were in respect of those between the ages of 17 and 20. We are therefore dealing tonight with a matter which is critical to the anxious question as to how to reduce rapidly the growing number of young adults in the prison system.
I was interested to learn the range of work and I made some inquiries. It includes large-scale environmental projects in national parks and on canal restoration and riverside walks, shopping and lunch clubs for the elderly, special groups for the mentally handicapped, which not only provide one-to-one care but give a well-earned day's break to those who would otherwise be the carers, and the maintenance of footpaths, church halls, adventure playgrounds and graveyards—all this while preserving the cardinal principle that these schemes should not replace paid labour.
What of the future, a question that the previous two speakers have asked? I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that there will be no tinkering with community service orders in what has been heralded as some change of policy at the Home Office in regard to penal matters. My noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, asked that anxious question, and I repeat it. I hope indeed that we shall have promises tonight of encouragement and even greater support for the probation service in supervising these orders—and encouragement too to the judiciary at every level to utilise them. One also hopes for some greater consistency in their use. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin of 24th June 1992 points out:
"Although some improvement in consistency was achieved in 1990, probation areas differ considerably in the use made of CSOs from South Yorkshire where 4.8 per cent. of offenders were given a CSO in 1990 to Inner London and Dyfed where 1.7 per cent. of offenders were given a CSO".
Has the Minister any later information on consistency in the various areas which would encourage us?
1446
Perhaps I may end by quoting from a Council of Europe document of 1986 which described community service as,
"probably the most progressive alternative measure introduced in European criminal law in the last 10 years, the one which seems to offer the most possibilities and the one which raises the most hopes".
My noble friend Lord Longford performed a community service by bringing this subject before the House tonight.
9.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us the opportunity of reviewing the progress of community service orders this evening. I was grateful for the kind remarks that he made at the beginning of his speech when he hoped that I was fit and well and ready for battle. I must admit that some of his comments made me feel like joining him in battle, but I shall desist from so doing for the time being.
We all know the noble Earl to be passionate about prison reform and the way in which prisoners are treated. And that —if I may say so—is wholly commendable, even if the noble Earl will understand that I cannot follow him step by step in all of his aspirations and his conclusions. The noble Earl said that one of his dreams was one in which thousands of those who are sent to prison at present will instead be given community service orders. That is one of the areas in which I slip my moorings with the noble Earl.
Prison should be reserved to deal with the most serious of offenders. The noble Earl asked on two or three occasions, as did the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and Lord Mishcon, whether the Government stood by the 1991 Criminal Justice Act. The answer is that they do. The whole philosophy behind that Act was that those who were the worst offenders had to be sent to prison, both for the nature of their crime and in order to protect the public. And I would remind the noble Earl that the protection of the public is a prime responsibility for any Home Secretary and indeed for the courts. In that respect, I cannot share the noble Earl's dream that all those people should not go to prison.
The dream that I would share with him is that those who have the responsibility for children—the parents, the teachers, both moral and spiritual, and all those involved with the young—would so bring up the children of the future that they would not end up in prison and never commit crime. Maybe that dream—like the noble Earl's—will never become a 100 per cent. reality. But it is an aim to strive for.
The other part of the philosophy of the 1991 Act was that those who had not committed the most offensive crimes should not be sent to prison where they would hob nob with those who are the worst offenders in society and would learn the tricks, as one might say, from the old dogs—that is an expression, of course, and not a description. But, instead, those lesser criminals should be punished—and I mean punished—within the community, where they are separated from the worst offenders but where they may do some useful work;

1447
learn, possibly, some form of remorse; understand—a little—the effect which their crimes have had on society; give back, by reparation to the community, a little of that which they have removed. So, in that respect, the philosophy of the 1991 Act remains now as it was then. But nothing can be fossilised. Life is, if nothing else, a moveable, vibrant entity. It is like an ant hill. It is always moving. And laws and attitudes must adjust and react to circumstances as they change.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that he did not want to be more offensive to my right honourable friend than he was last time, when he called him the "Prince of Darkness". I find it impossible to imagine how much more offensive one can be than that, particularly at Christmastime. I shall resist the temptation to argue with the noble Earl. However, he is quite rightly concerned about crime. People in the country are concerned about crime. My right honourable friend is determined to take action to deal with crime and to give the courts sufficient powers. It is up to the courts to do the sentencing.
And when the noble Earl castigates my right honourable friend for saying that prison works, I would just remind him that for all the inconveniences—the restrictions, the incarceration, the wastefulness, the shamefulness, which is a concomitant part of prison life—it does actually remove the offender from society, and while he is in prison, it prevents him from continuing to perpetrate his offences.
From the point of view of the society, which has been so violated by the offender, prison works. Whatever else, while he is in prison, that society is protected from the attention of the prisoner. And, when in prison, if the offender can be improved physically, psychologically, emotionally, technically—and all those things can happen in prison—prison does work.
But I agree with the noble Earl that it would be much better if that person was not in prison in the first place. But that is his choice. He has chosen to be a criminal. No one has to be. And he must live with the consequences of his actions. And he must be responsible for them.
The undoubted success of community service schemes as a sentencing measure over the past 20 years, is best illustrated by the remarkable statistic that, since 1973, some 60 million hours of useful and unpaid work by offenders has been ordered by judges and by magistrates. There can be no doubt that many organisations and individuals have benefited from these offenders and from the work which they have done.
There has been much greater emphasis recently on the use of community sentences such as community service orders. In part, this is because community service is seen to be, and is designed to be, punishment within the community. If the noble Earl still harbours doubts that the provisions of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act will be emasculated, let me remind him that in 1992—only last year—43,000 community service orders were begun. This is the highest total ever. It represents 10 per cent. of all the sentences which were passed in 1992; and it represents 13 per cent. of all those sentences which were passed by the Crown Court. This trend has continued throughout the first half of 1993,
1448
when 23,000 community service orders were begun. This is an increase of 7 per cent. over the same period in 1992.
So when the noble Earl gets frightened, for some reason best known to himself, that the use of community service orders will be whittled away, I would just advise him not to be like the terrified Protestant who feared that he would "find the Pope of Rome behind every bush", although I daresay the noble Earl would think it a very good thing if we did find the Pope of Rome behind every bush. I recognise that that is not a very good analogy for the noble Earl, but it is my rather pedantic way of suggesting to the noble Earl that he should stop fussing.
Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, were anxious that community service orders should continue and that the Government should not seek to ensure that they are used less. I remind both the noble Earl and the noble Lord that the law allows the use of the community service orders but, of course, it is up to the courts—and not the Government—whether or not they use them. Parliament has provided that facility and they seem to be using them—and that is a good thing.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 now allows community service to become available for offenders who are aged 16 or over and who have been convicted of an offence which is sufficiently serious to warrant such a sentence. The Act also had the important effect of introducing, for the first time, the combination order. This combines a probation order with a community service order, which is, one might say, a double whammy. And this, of course, is another choice for the sentencers. I am glad that that at least received the noble Earl's approval.
New national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community were produced to coincide with the implementation of the 1991 Act. The new standards set minimum standards for good practice in all areas of probation service work with offenders. This included community service and combination orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was worried about the consistency of the use of community service orders The national standards are now due to be revised, and this should be done by September 1994. They will then give even clearer guidelines to the managers of the Probation Service on the minimum standards which will be expected both of probation officers and of community service staff.
The object of the community service order is to reintegrate the offender into the community. This is done by giving him clear, demanding, but unpaid work to do in the community and, by doing that work, enabling him thereby to provide some reparation to the community for the harm and distrust —and fear—which, by his antisocial and illegal behaviour, he has created both in the community as a whole and among some of its individual members.
Part of the success of community service orders has been their ability to create some form of reparation which can be directed to a greater or lesser degree to the victims of the crime. Offenders might, for example, be required to repair, repaint and rebuild their local

1449
community hall. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, gave an instance of that and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave a number of examples, and those are good.
Very often, offenders who have come from a disorganised and unstable background can begin to become part of society again and can begin to have a stake in it. The fact is that many offenders have a history of unemployment or of casual labour, and, as a result, they lack the discipline to report regularly and on time for work. I think that that is a pathetic reflection of our society, education, home life, or what you will—but it is a fact. A requirement to report regularly and on time under a community service order may, therefore, form quite a stepping-stone back into the reality of a more ordered life.
Other offenders may find communication difficult. Working in a team on a group project may help both to overcome this and to give them some form of self-confidence, which in the present ghastly jargon of today is sometimes called "developing basic social skills". That really means learning to behave properly and not anti-socially.
Nothing succeeds like success, and with success goes confidence and self-confidence. If a person can show that he has been successful with his community service order then his self-confidence can begin to grow. That is one of the most important benefits of a community service order. Another good effect is that many ex-offenders continue with voluntary work at projects which they performed as part of their community service, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
At a time when there is considerable public concern about the level of crime in society, and when the Government are looking afresh at all sentencing options, including the use which is made of custodial as well as of non-custodial sentences, it is important that we should be able to demonstrate publicly that
1450
community sentences are a worthwhile option. They must be good for the offender. They must be good for the community. They should not be considered as an intellectual and inadequate reaction to the perpetrators of crime. They must not be soft. They must be demanding.
I am not as generous as the noble Earl, who is renowned for his understanding of the criminal. I do not have quite that sympathy. No one has to be a criminal. No one has to misbehave. Everyone has a responsibility for what they do. And if a person misbehaves, in my book he has no one to blame other than himself. Meanwhile others suffer, sometimes even for life.
In my book, therefore, the offender should be subject to the full rigours of the law, which should include punishment as well as reparation. If that punishment can be fulfilled within the community, without the disadvantage of exposure to the more criminal elements within prison, and if it can be done to the material improvement of the criminal, then that is fine. But it must not be regarded, nor must it be, a soft way out of the proper deserts of criminal behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, asked whether we would re-establish the Advisory Council on the Penal System. We have no plans to do so, but we now have the Criminal Justice Consultative Council, with wide representation from the criminal justice agencies and the relevant professions. It was brought into being following the Woolf Report and is regarded widely as having a key role to play in advising the Government and improving the criminal justice system.
I hope that the noble Earl will feel content that any anxiety which he may have felt about the continued use of community service orders has been misplaced, and that his debate, if it has done nothing other than reassure him about that, will have been worth while.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine o'clock.

  BRITISH NATIONALS RESIDENT OVERSEAS
  BRITISH NATIONALS RESIDENT OVERSEAS
  RUSSIA: LAND OWNERSHIP
  RUSSIA: LAND OWNERSHIP
  RUSSIA: ECONOMIC REFORMS
  RUSSIA: ECONOMIC REFORMS
  FAMILIES AND THE BUDGET
  FAMILIES AND THE BUDGET
  RAF SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE
  RAF SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE
  ROEHAMPTON BURNS UNIT
  ROEHAMPTON BURNS UNIT
  REGISTRATION SERVICE: REFORM PROPOSALS
  REGISTRATION SERVICE: REFORM PROPOSALS
  WEST CROMWELL ROAD: WORKS
  WEST CROMWELL ROAD: WORKS
  GREAT WEST ROAD: WORKS
  GREAT WEST ROAD: WORKS
  ROAD PRICING RESEARCH: REPORT
  ROAD PRICING RESEARCH: REPORT
  CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW AUTHORITY
  CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW AUTHORITY
  PAROLE BOARD: FULL-TIME MEMBERS
  PAROLE BOARD: FULL-TIME MEMBERS
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME
  Mr. JOSEPH ELLIOT
  Mr. JOSEPH ELLIOT
  IDENTITY CARDS
  IDENTITY CARDS
  MARINE FISHERIES: SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY
  MARINE FISHERIES: SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
  MILK MARKETING BOARD AND EC LAW
  MILK MARKETING BOARD AND EC LAW
  MILK MARQUE LIMITED
  MILK MARQUE LIMITED
  BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN: MARINE WILDLIFE
  BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN: MARINE WILDLIFE
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: COASTAL AGENCIES
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: COASTAL AGENCIES
  BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN: SEA ANEMONES
  BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN: SEA ANEMONES
  WHATLEY QUARRY, MELLS: APPLICATION
  WHATLEY QUARRY, MELLS: APPLICATION
  MINERALS PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTE 6
  MINERALS PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTE 6