Sitting of 16 December 1993

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

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Late Payers
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his proposals to remedy the practice of late payment to suppliers.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of letters supporting the Budget announcement of consultation on measures to promote prompt payment. Responses to the consultation paper, which should be addressed to the Department of Trade and Industry, should reach that Department by 31 March 1994.
    Hon. Members: We cannot hear.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have already given instructions that the microphones should be switched on. Perhaps we can proceed as it is being taken care of.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Hon. Members on both sides of the House tell of small businesses in their constituencies whose survival has been put at risk by late payments from large companies. Will my hon. Friend investigate allegations that such practices are condoned or even encouraged by managements of certain companies? Does he agree that that is another example of the unacceptable face of capitalism which threatens the survival of small businesses, the growth of which the Government have done so much to encourage?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend's complaint is clearly echoed in many of the representations that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received. The Government deplore big companies taking advantage of small companies by the wilful late payment of bills. Many of those small companies have to pay in cash or in advance when big companies can delay payment. That is exactly why my right hon. and learned Friend has produced the consultation paper and I hope that it will be well received.
    Mr. William Ross: Surely the best way to bring the big companies to their senses is to make them pay interest on the bills that they owe? Would not it help companies of all sizes if interest rates generally were reduced?
    Mr. Nelson: That is indeed one of the proposals that are being mooted in the Government's consultative paper. Clearly, there are problems with legislation, in that it interrupts the contractual arrangements between companies. My right hon. and learned Friend in putting forward the proposals, clearly believes that there is an endemic problem, which is not just a reflection of the period of high interest rates, but has become a matter of culture in business payments. It needs to be dealt with and we look forward to the response to the paper.

    Fuels
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of taxation on the consumption of carbon dioxide-producing fuels.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Taxes on energy products are one factor affecting their consumption and hence total carbon dioxide emissions.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that we put political considerations aside when we put VAT on fuel and that we were more concerned with saving the planet? We put a generous compensation package in place—the most generous ever—which made the figure proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) a weak, wet 50p. We beat that 50p. Does the Minister further agree that if we wired up that lot opposite, they would not produce enough energy to turn on the lights of Madam Speaker's Christmas tree?
    Sir John Cope: As usual, my hon. Friend tells the truth with a flourish. The Labour party supports Rio and the reduction in borrowing, but it is not willing to accept the consequences.
    Mr. Wigley: In the context of road fuels, has the Minister had representations from those involved in bus companies? The way in which the rebate works will considerably increase the cost of bus transport, probably to a greater extent that the Treasury has anticipated. Is he studying the matter? Can he tell the companies that the Treasury will find a way round the problem?
    Sir John Cope: We always study carefully all representations that we receive. However, the cap on the bus fuel rebate will also encourage energy efficiency which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is part of the point of the measure.
    Mr. Dunn: Is not it a fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) complained about the way in which his proposal was treated only after the Budget was announced, when he realised that the Government were meeting the amount for which he had asked? Should not he make it plain that he did not complain before the Budget?
    Sir John Cope: It came out clearly in the debates last week, following the Budget, that the hon. Member for Garscadden did not raise the matter until after the Budget statement.
    Ms Harman: Will the Minister admit that 70p a week compensation for a pensioner couple will not cover the VAT on their fuel bill? Does he recognise how bitter and angry those pensioners will feel when they recognise that, in addition to the VAT, they will have to pay 70p a week on their insurance premiums, which will wipe out the effect of the VAT compensation? Is not that typical of this Conservative Government? Even when they are forced grudgingly to give a little with one hand, they take it all back—and more—with the other.
    Sir John Cope: The decision on compensation will add £1·30 a week to the single pension and £1·85 a week to the married couple's pension by April 1996, when the measure is introduced in full.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to meet the objectives of the convention on climate change, to which we signed up in Rio, we need to encourage more energy efficiency in the domestic sector, which my right hon. and learned Friend has done in his Budget by doubling the home energy efficiency scheme? We also need to burn hydrocarbons more efficiently in the transport sector. My right hon. and learned Friend has encouraged that by his pledge to increase the price of hydrocarbons by 5 per cent., which is a very tough target in real terms over the next few years.
    Sir John Cope: All this goes towards fulfilling our Rio commitments which, as I said just now, the Labour party supports, although it will not accept the means outlined by my hon. Friend.

    Public Spending
    Ms Abbott: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of his public spending plans for growth in the economy.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Taking full account of effects of the Budget, my forecast is for GDP growth of 2·5 per cent. in 1994.
    Ms Abbott: Yesterday, under questioning in the Treasury Select Committee, the Chancellor admitted that the total effect of his tax changes would be to put up income tax by the equivalent of 7p in the pound and to put up the average family's tax bill by £9 a week. You can debate—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must put a question to the Chancellor.
    Ms Abbott: Does the Chancellor agree that whatever one says about the effect of his public spending proposals on growth, the country will never trust the Conservatives on tax again?
    Mr. Clarke: In the long session yesterday in the Select Committee, I certainly accepted that I had raised taxation to a certain extent and that I had reduced public spending as well to get down the level of public borrowing, which would otherwise be a constraint on recovery. The effect on the individual man and woman will depend not only on one feature of that, but on what happens to economic recovery.
    At present, the British economy is the only major economy in western Europe enjoying any growth. We have inflation down to its lowest level for 26 years. We have unemployment coming down again today, which is not an experience shared anywhere in western Europe. That is what will affect the well-being of ordinary men and women, if we can strengthen the recovery. That is the context in which the hon. Lady should put her criticisms of tax policy. She and her party do not have the first idea —at least, they have given no hint of it—of what they would do about borrowing and how they would sustain the recovery.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that cuts in public spending have less effect on consumer confidence than do increases in taxation and, therefore, less impact on growth? Does he accept that the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members welcome the cuts in public spending under the Budget and the contribution made to bringing the Budget deficit under

    1255
    control? Does he further accept that there is still an enormous amount of waste, overmanning and inefficiency in the public sector, especially in local government? Will the Government launch a national campaign to cut that waste and to make further public savings?
    Mr. Clarke: Obviously, it depends on how one makes the spending cuts. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is plenty of scope to cut out waste in the public service. Many dedicated public servants do just that. We have never embarked on an exercise of reducing public spending quite so sharply as we have on this occasion. It will not damage the economy, because a great deal of the savings will come from administrative improvements and from holding down the pay bill of those who work in the public sector to a level —for the same reasons as the pay bill will be held down in the private sector—to create the conditions in which we can have economic growth and today's welcome fall in unemployment can be repeated month after month. That is why we take the tough and necessary decisions on tax and spending. I will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his support when we do so.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: As well as increasing taxes "to a certain extent", the Chancellor has also committed himself to a very tight new control total for the non-cyclical elements of public expenditure, allowing for growth of only 3·8 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1998-99. Is not it the case that, at the same stage of the economic cycle under Baroness Thatcher's Government, comparable spending rose by 12·5 per cent? Is not it therefore incumbent on the Chief Secretary to say just what hardship and pain are to be caused to achieve these undesirable and hitherto unachievable spending targets?
    Mr. Clarke: As a Government, we are in a position where we are very conscious of the need to constrain public spending. We have improved the opportunities for the private sector to be released and achieve growth, investment and new job creation. We have set a very challenging target for ourselves, but it is not impossibly challenging at a time when we have got inflation down. The headline figure is 1·5 per cent.—the lowest for 25 years. It is the first time since 1960 that inflation has been below 2 per cent. for almost every month in the year. That makes the spending targets realistic. When we made our spending decisions—as the hon. Gentleman will recall—we protected all our priorities. Spending on health and higher education was up, we had the new apprenticeship scheme and we protected our spending on law and order. It is a well-judged spending package.

    Budget Response
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in response to his Budget.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Budget has been widely welcomed throughout the country.
    Mrs. Gillan: At this festive time, will my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the owners of small and medium-sized businesses who have made representations to me that his Budget is a major step forward in creating the stable economic environment in which they can trade? Further, does he agree with them that the specific measures taken to help small businesses in the Budget, together with
    1256
    the low interest rates and unprecedented low rates of inflation, make it possible for them to look forward to a very happy and prosperous new year?
    Mr. Clarke: I believe so, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the same reaction from the small business people she has met as I have had from the people I have met, who have been generous in their comments on my Budget. Mr. Stan Mendham, who is by no means always uncritical of the Government, has been very praising of the Budget. A commentator described me as having something of a bee in my bonnet about small business. That is the case. I believe that in order to improve the prospects for investment in small businesses, it is legitimate to deregulate and take the burdens off them and encourage more risk capital and self employment in this country. I believe that it is in the small and medium-sized business that we will get the growth of employment that we require throughout the 1990s. I am gald that my hon. Friend approves of the fact that we laid such heavy emphasis on the needs of small business in the Budget.
    Mr. Sheldon: Facing the consequences of the severe recession, is it not clear that the balance of payments deficit is more important than the Budget deficit? With the pound increasing in value steadily during the past six or nine months to a considerable extent, is it not also clear that this is the time to reduce interest rates, cut imports and encourage exports?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, who is very experienced in these matters, acknowledges that we are now firmly on top of the deficit in the public finances, and so is turning his attention to the balance of trade. He will know that, at the moment, it is difficult to get accurate figures on our trading position as we introduce the new system because of the introduction of the single market. Because our economy is so much stronger and demand is rising here compared to the continuing recession in Germany and France, there is a tendency for people to wish to sell into our economy, which is affecting our position. Otherwise, our trade figures are extremely good and our currency has been remarkably stable for the past few month—it has not been strengthening noticeably. Most importantly, British industry is retaining its competitiveness. We are still holding the advantage from devaluation. Our unit wage costs have fallen this year, and we are in a competitive position. I shall keep an eye on all the matters on which I usually keep an eye when deciding monetary policy, but I am reasonably optimistic about the British trading position as we come out of the recession.
    Mr. Heald: I welcome the measures in the Budget which deal with small businesses. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measure suggested by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—slapping an extra 1 per cent. on national insurance contributions for the self-employed—would be a disaster for small businesses and would affect the competitiveness of British industry?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Skinner: What about what the Government are doing later today?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend was speaking about an increase in the national insurance contribution for the self-employed. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are raising it for employees this evening.
    If implemented, the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil would, as my hon. Friend said, damage the interests of self-employed people. Self-employment grew rapidly in the 1980s and, in a modern economy, it is desirable that we reduce the burden on people going for self-employment, rather than increasing it in the way proposed by the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Beith: The Chancellor presumably recognises that the rate of contribution by the self-employed is below that paid by employed people and employers. As the Budget strategy depends very much on low interest rates and low inflation, will the Chancellor look carefully and favourably at the proposal made by the Treasury Select Committee today, which carries the support of all but one member of the Committee, for a central bank that has autonomous responsibility for monetary policy? Is not that the way to lock in low interest rates and low inflation? Will he give that suggestion the most careful consideration?
    Mr. Clarke: I can agree to give the proposal careful consideration, but it requires much further debate and discussion. I am grateful to the Select Committee for its report. We shall have an opportunity, through the Bill being presented today by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), to debate those matters in the House. I have an open mind on the subject, although people try to guess my opinion. I have a feeling that the Select Committee's proposal is becoming rather a fashionable cause. We should consider it with care, also taking into account such matters as parliamentary accountability for an increasingly more autonomous Bank of England.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received representations from the Scotch whisky industry, which has been telling me that the sensible treatment of excise duties in the Budget will have a substantial impact on its sales at home? Is he aware that that will increase the revenue to the Treasury and help the position abroad, because it sends the right messages for an industry that exports almost £2,000 million worth of products?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad that I was able to follow the precedent set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) in acknowledging the problems of the Scotch whisky industry and not increasing excise on its products. I hope that the industry will be able to take advantage of that and will recover its strength. I also hope that the industry derives the enormous benefits that could potentially accrue to it from the successful conclusion of the GATT round, which is the best piece of economic news that this and most other trading countries have received in 1993.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: After the Chancellor's admission yesterday that the typical family will pay the equivalent of 7p in the pound more in income tax, will he also confirm that the typical family will, from April, be paying £10 a week more in seven separate tax rises and three new taxes? Will he also confirm that, while the wealthiest 1 per cent. received 33 per cent. of the income tax cuts made in the 1988 Budget, middle and lower-income Britain is now
    1258
    paying 95 per cent. of the tax rises from this year's Budget? Are not the Tories now exposed not only as the party of higher taxation, but, as it always has been, as the party of unfair taxation?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman uses what he describes as a "typical family". It is not an average family, but a family that he takes out of the middle ranks of those earning. I have acknowledged that we are increasing taxation. I made an hour and a quarter's speech describing my taxation increases. The hon. Gentleman's mistake is to say that that is the only effect that the Budget will have on the average family. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, he would follow policies that would increase inflation, again increase interest rates—now at their lowest level for 16 years—increase public sector borrowing, slow the recession recovery, reverse the fall in unemployment and probably cause it to increase again, and once more make this country extremely uncompetitive in world markets. That would do far more damage to the ordinary person than my Budget, which sorts out the problem with public finances so that we are clear to have a stronger recovery in the 1990s.

    Economic Competitiveness
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet his French counterpart to discuss economic competitiveness in Europe; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I met Mr. Alphandery, the French Finance Minister, along with Finance Ministers from the other member states, to discuss European competitiveness at the recent European Council and ECOFIN meetings. I expect that we will discuss this issue further at future meetings.
    Mr. Lidington: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets his French counterpart, will he employ his customary energetic diplomacy to remind the French Finance Minister that an economic plan for Europe which involves higher borrowing, more help for state-funded white elephants and cuts in working hours would not encourage investment, but would cause any potential investor simply to shake his head sadly and take both money and jobs somewhere else?
    Mr. Clarke: I think that my hon. Friend is assuming that the French Finance Minister is a bigger supporter of some proposals that come from the Commission in Brussels than he actually is. My colleague Mr. Alphandery is as big a sceptic as I am of some proposals, such as those my hon. Friend listed, that have been emanating from people with less well-judged ideas. The French Government have been imposing some strict austerity measures recently. They are making changes to their social security system to make it affordable and to reduce the costs on their employers. They have reduced their minimum wage for young people because they have found, as we would if we were to introduce one here, that the minimum wage created unemployment among young people. I assure my hon. Friend that my colleague Mr. Alphandery is somewhat nearer to his views and mine than he fears.
    Nevertheless, France is not having the recovery that we are. It has a higher level of unemployment than we do and

    1259
    I think that the French Government are looking with interest at what is happening on this side of the channel and propose to follow many of our measures.
    Mr. Hoon: The French Government have obviously decided that the best way of promoting their economic competitiveness is in the negotiations with the German Government on the terms of the creation of a single currency. How does the Chancellor intend to influence those negotiations? Or is he content that Britain should remain on the European sidelines?
    Mr. Clarke: We are not on the European sidelines. It is true that at the Finance Ministers' meetings that I attend I am more often in total agreement with the German and Dutch Finance Ministers and usually with the Spanish Finance Minister than with Mr. Alphandery. Nevertheless, Mr. Alphandery and I are agreed on about four fifths of the issues. Last week's debate was based on the Opposition party's crazy premise that all the Finance Ministers of western Europe were sold on the idea of borrowing enormous sums and spending enormous sums to create extra jobs.
    I am in complete agreement on currency with the other members of ECOFIN, including the French and the Germans. Now we have to concentrate on achieving convergence in our economic performance to achieve that stability of exchange rates, which will follow. My French and German colleagues are as keen as I am on getting inflation down to the levels that the British are now achieving and on getting public sector deficits down to the level that we are now on course for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] The gulf exists between the British Labour party and other governing parties in western Europe.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Europe is increasingly uncompetitive and over-regulated? Does he further accept that the growth in the world will take place outside Europe, in north America, south America and the Pacific rim? When will he create policies for Britain's manufacturing and construction sectors to enable us to take advantage of the real growth outside Europe?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must make ourselves competitive with the countries in the Pacific rim and north America that are our rivals in world trade, but that point is increasingly appreciated in western Europe. As my hon. Friend talked about burdens on employers, he will be glad to know that at the recent summit in Brussels it was agreed that we should have an inventory of social regulations that bear down on employers and add to the costs of employment.
    Mr. Winterton: At my request and that of the manufacturing alliance.
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that my hon. Friend went ahead of us to ask for that. We regard that as a considerable success in our negotiations.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Chancellor accept that taxation and transport links affect Britain's competitiveness? As the Chancellor does not know when, or even whether, the channel link will open and as he put up taxes when the Conservatives said at the previous election that they would not, why should we believe a single word that he or any of his colleagues say at the next election?
    Mr. Clarke: We are borrowing more money from the European investment bank than any other member state and investing it in Britain's infrastructure—for example, the Heathrow express, the Jubilee line extension—[Interruption.] They are under construction. Until recently, expenditure on Britain's road programme was about 40 per cent. higher in real terms and railway investment in Britain was 40 or 50 per cent. higher than five years ago. We are investing heavily in our infrastructure and we are ahead of our partners in Europe in developing it using European instruments—[Interruption.] The debate that we had last week was based on the dire proposition of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who had not read the document that he was talking about, that Mr. Delors was offering us some money to build the channel tunnel high-speed rail link. That rail link has not yet been built because it has not been designed.
    Mr. Jessel: With regard to economic competitiveness in Europe in the auction of works of art, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on the successful outcome of the long and difficult VAT negotiations, preventing that valuable market from being driven out of Britain and the Common Market to Geneva and New York?
    Mr. Clarke: I happily join my hon. Friend in those congratulations. I happened to be there when the final decision was taken in the Council last week, and he is right to say that all the negotiations have been carried out with considerable skill by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

    Education Expenditure
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of total expenditure was devoted to education in 1980–81, 1984–85, 1988–89 and 1992–93.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): For the years in question, the percentages of total expenditure devoted to education were 11·8 per cent., 10·7 per cent., 11·8 per cent. and 11·9 per cent.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that our spending on education as a percentage of total expenditure is not as high as that of most of our competitors and that, in particular, we have a dismal record on nursery education on which we need to spend far more in order to give our children the best possible start in life?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman heard the figures that I gave, which I do not think he expected, and I spared his blushes by not mentioning that the number of schoolchildren had fallen by 1 million during that period, so that expenditure per child had risen by 50 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Gentleman is interested in international comparisons. He might think that education was of a high standard in Germany and Japan, but the percentage of gross domestic product spent in Germany and Japan was 3·2 per cent. and here it is 4·8 per cent.
    Mr. Forman: Is it not abundantly clear from my right hon. Friend's exchange with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that my right hon. Friend shot the hon. Gentlman's fox? Is it not equally clear that the Government believe in investing in human capital and

    1261
    have had consistent policies to that end over the past 15 years? Are they not right to insist that those who benefit directly from higher education should bear a greater proportion of the burden?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is well placed to comment on those matters. He knows that we have increased the proportion of our young people in higher education to about one in three, which is a rise from one in eight in 1979. He also knows that the number of young people participating in further education will increase by about 250,000 in the next three years.
    My hon. Friend says that it will be right for students to bear a greater share of the burden. We certainly believe that where the state provides means-tested help for students' maintenance, it is right that students should make a greater contribution by taking a greater proportion of their funding through loans that are repayable if they find employment at about the average level of earnings. I am sure that that is fair and just. It enables us to make that enormous increase in educational provision.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: How on earth does the Chief Secretary square what he has just said with the reports of his views that the target of one in three need not be met and that the country does not need that many graduates by the year 2000? He believes in putting the right-wing dogma of cutting expenditure over the needs of education. He said that he wanted to impose the cost of education on students. Does not that show that he puts the dogma of right-wing Tory ideology over the need for investment in education and opportunities?
    Mr. Portillo: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I think is important. So far, all the discussion has been about how much money we are putting into education. There should also be a discussion about the quality that we get out of education, the number of people whom we educate and the qualifications with which we put them into the outside world. The hon. Gentleman cited certain of my views. If he has the documents in which I stated them, he should lay them on the table. If not, he should stop indulging in gossip.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for the balance of payments.
    Mr. Portillo: Unit labour cost performance is excellent and competitiveness has been much improved. In spite of weak activity abroad, the trend in the visible deficit is downard, with exports at record levels.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that performance is a considerable tribute to British exporters? Will their performance not be further enhanced by the successful outcome of the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, into which the Government have put so much effort in recent months?
    Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in particular, has been a major force in pressing for the most liberal outcome to the GATT negotiations. The GATT outcome is estimated to be worth $270 billion to the world economy. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the President
    1262
    of the Board of Trade have put great emphasis on that benefit to the world economy. That benefit far outweighs the individual difficulties of countries. Although we well understand those difficulties, they are definitely less important than that benefit.
    My hon. Friend refers to the benefits to British industry. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) spoke about the Scotch whisky industry, which exports £2 billion-worth of its products and faces tariffs of 30 per cent. in Japan, of 250 per cent. in Singapore and of 20 per cent. in New Zealand. The GATT deal is set to sweep away those tariffs progressively, which is good news for British industry.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern in South Yorkshire about the state of the engineering and steel industry? Yesterday, United Engineering Steels, which is one of the United Kingdom's prime exporters and at the core of United Kingdom industry, had to shed 400 jobs. That company is convinced—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must ask a direct question now.
    Mrs. Jackson: My direct question is: what will the Government do that they did not do in the Budget to support this country's core manufacturing industry, so that the jobs of highly skilled workers and engineers in our constituencies are not lost?
    Mr. Portillo: The House heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor say earlier that unemployment fell last month. It fell across the country and, incidentally, it fell in Sheffield.
    The engineering industry depends on the success of other British industries, for instance, our car industry. As a result of the competitive conditions that we have sustained in Britain, we are attracting the bulk of investment into the European Community. That is because we have maintained competitive rates of taxation and that, in turn, is because we have imposed restraint on public spending. British industry has responded magnificently, improving its productivity in manufacturing by more than 4 per cent. in the past year and reducing its unit wage costs, while those costs have risen in Japan and Germany. That has given British industry a real competitive edge. The hon. Lady should be celebrating that, not carping.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects for our balance of trade have significantly improved since we withdrew from the exchange rate mechanism a little more than 12 months ago? Does he further agree that if we were to enter a single currency in the EC, which would involve huge costs to sustain both it and the disparities in the EC, Britain would be made less competitive and it would be bad for our balance of trade?
    Mr. Portillo: The prospects for our balance of payments have been altered in recent months. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the deficit for 1992 has been revised downwards, from £12 billion to £8·5 billion, and that our forecast for the two years ahead has also been revised down, from £17·5 billion to £9·5 billion in 1993 and from £18·5 billion to £9·5 billion in 1994.
    I believe that the really important factor is not any change from moment to moment in the exchange rate but

    1263
    the underlying improvement in competitiveness which is due to higher productivity and the control of unit wage costs. A single currency is not currently on the European agenda.

    Inflation (NHS)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he took of the level of national health service inflation in determining his allocation of resources to the Department of Health.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government reached a view on the appropriate level of national health service spending, taking into account the GDP deflator and the scope for efficiency improvements.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that the British Medical Association says that the real inflation figure in the national health service is 3·9 per cent? Does he agree that the announcement in the Budget will therefore lead to a decrease in NHS spending power?
    Mr. Portillo: I calculate that in the year ahead the NHS will be able to treat 4 per cent. more patients than this year. Once again, I urge the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to concentrate on outputs, not inputs. Surely what matters is how many people get treated, not how much money gets put in.
    The hon. Lady underplays the tremendous scope in the NHS for improving efficiency. Last year, the northern region was able to increase its efficiency by nearly 4 per cent., as was the Oxford region, with the west midlands region only a little behind—the Mersey region was very close, too. For all those reasons, we can increase both efficiency and the number of patients who are treated.
    Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to solve a problem is not necessarily to throw money at it but to get better value for money? Is he aware that the NHS trusts in Gloucestershire are doing just that? Gloucester Royal hospital will treat nearly 250,000 people this year—it is a trust. The Gloucestershire ambulance service, also a trust, is continually improving its service to patients, too.
    Mr. Portillo: The reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and her predecessors have introduced have transformed the ability of the health service to provide efficient health care and to ensure that ever more patients are treated well and efficiently. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) was wrong to talk about a rate of inflation in the health service. Inflation in the health service is largely a matter of pay in the health service. That pay is under the control of management in the health service, and so it should be.

    Taxation
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the average family's tax bill of all the increases in taxation announced in his Budget last month.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): On average, the main tax-related changes proposed in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget will cost households around 90p a week from April 1994 and an additional £1·80 a week from April 1995.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that, during the election campaign, my constituency was covered with posters announcing the so-called "Labour tax bombshell"? Since then, there has been a Tory tax explosion. Will the Minister explain why his party lied during the election about its tax proposals?
    Mr. Dorrell: We saw earlier this afternoon the exact nature of that Labour tax bombshell. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) stood at the Dispatch Box and called for increased public expenditure without giving the House any indication of how he intended that expenditure to be paid for. We will listen to the Labour party on the subject of lower tax when it tells us how it would finance its spending programmes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list official engagements for Thursday 16 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that, exactly one year ago, a man who was suffering from mental illness climbed into a paddock of a zoo and was savagely mauled by lion? Despite the public dismay and concern over that incident, there are still thousands of mentally ill people who are tramping the streets of our major cities. They often live in cardboard boxes and are unable to look after themselves. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a national disgrace? Will he tell the House what action he will take to get those people off the streets and into places of care and protection?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of action has been taken—most noticeably in London—to get many people, both those suffering from the ailment to which the hon. Gentleman refers and others, off the streets. That has been remarkably successful, and we will continue with that policy.
    Mr. Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend recall his admirable speech at the Conservative party conference in which he said that the Union between Ulster and Britain was of immense importance to the Conservative party? Did not that echo his comment during the election that he stood with passion and commitment for the unity of this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that stands a little oddly beside his statement that this country has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend therefore declare today that he believes in the Union, that he wants it to persist and that he believes it has been in the interests of the people of this country?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it stands remotely oddly with the joint declaration which I set before the House yesterday. The joint declaration reaffirms in unmistakeable terms the commitment that we have consistently given to the people of Northern Ireland, and I reaffirm that again now.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who told the Treasury Select Committee yesterday that the tax increases in this year's Budget were the equivalent of an increase of 7p on income tax?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday was that the aggregate sum of money raised after three years would amount to a crude equivalent of 7p. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that takes no account of growth in the economy and many other matters. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about taxes, perhaps he might contemplate some of his proposals for new taxes. He is committed to eight more taxes, without any indication of how he would fund his spending promises or meet the debts that occurred as we helped vulnerable people through the recession.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the Chancellor told the Select Committee yesterday that the increases would amount to between £15 billion and £17 billion? Is there anything more crude than promising not to increase taxes before an election and putting them up by £15 billion afterwards?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not realise that he is referring to the cost of Budget measures over the next three years. He is obviously deficient in understanding and has produced an entirely spurious one-off tax increase. I can understand why. I quote what the acting general secretary of the Fabian Society wrote about the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the "Labour Review". [Interruption.] I hope that the Opposition will laugh in a moment because this is what was written about the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party:
    "If the characteristics being exhibited by the Parliamentary Labour Party were translated into the conduct of a single individual, she or he would certainly be in therapy."
    Mr. John Smith: May I put a straight question to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I know that his party does not want to hear it. Does he deny that before the last election, the Conservative party promised not to increase taxes?
    The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Does he deny what his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said about unemployment? He has had nothing to say today about unemployment, nothing about inflation and nothing about the eight taxes to which he is committed. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. I want to hear the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: The Opposition do not, because they will not like it. Let us hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his proposed taxes on tourism and development, his payroll tax, his education tax and the fact that he wants to have the same level of corporation tax as our competitors in Europe. What about his pollution tax and his windfall tax? The man does nothing but propose new taxes day after day.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that small businesses in my constituency are absolutely delighted with the Chancellor's Budget and that, together with low
    1266
    inflation, low interest rates and increasing confidence, they are looking forward to a period of steady growth in the foreseeable future?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that that is the case. It is largely the growth and success of small businesses that are bringing down unemployment, and have been doing so month after month throughout this year. When unemployment figures go up, that is the only issue that concerns Labour Members. When those figures start coming down, apparently it is matter of no importance whatsoever.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that 1·25 million people are close to starvation in beleaguered central Bosnia, many of whose lives will be further put at risk in the bitter cold yet to come if the local power station at Kakanj is allowed to cease operations? Is he aware that, without vital supplies, that will happen in 20 days' time? Is he further aware the vital supplies provided by Britain are now being blockaded by the Serbs and Croats? Will the Prime Minister see what urgent action could be taken to make the provision of those vital supplies a test case for the Geneva convention on free passage of convoys so that those lives could be saved?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to the aid effort through the winter. We have made it clear, to pick up a point that will concern many hon. Members, that we still need to see the opening of Tuzla airport. We have so far provided more than £150 million-worth of assistance, and more than 2,300 troops are delivering that assistance, day after day, under the most difficult conditions. We are examining what we can do to deal with the present difficulties in Bosnia. The co-operation of parties on the ground will be needed to enable us to deliver the humanitarian assistance that we are prepared to deliver and fund. Throughout the conflict, our record has been second to none, and we will continue to do all that we can to ensure that people receive supplies throughout the winter.
    Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend knows that the economy is beginning to emerge. We are reducing unemployment every day and there will be more money in the coffers by the time of the next Budget. Does he agree that more money must be allocated by the Treasury to the Home Office to enable the pledges given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to be carried out, not only on the neighbourhood watch security patrols but on the numbers of police required? In Hampshire, for instance, we asked for 120 extra police and were given only five this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those measures are part of the Conservative philosophy and that, in the not-too-distant future, money will be available to fund them?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced measures not very long ago which, if carried out, will enable approximately 5,300 police officers to move from dealing with administrative work out to the front line to deal with the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned. That action has been taken within the expenditure levels agreed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave some moments ago
    Mrs. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor on the subject of stopping tax abuse? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his Budget speech that claims that more money might be found in that way were much exaggerated. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Public Accounts Committee, which found another £1 billion tax loophole for the aristocracy? Would not the Chancellor be better employed closing such tax loopholes than stinging every family in the country for an extra £10 a week as a result of his tax-raising Budget?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should know that my right hon. and learned Friend closed a number of genuine loopholes in the Budget. That will yield about £2 billion over the next three years. The loopholes so beloved of the Opposition Front Bench are not loopholes generally but measures such as ending relief on capital gains inheritance—which would leave less for parents to hand down to children—and reforming the rules applying to non-domiciled status foreigners, which is the Opposition's latest idea. All the main parties agreed, when that measure was reviewed in 1989, that the existing rules should remain because they made Britain an attractive business location.
    The Opposition's loophole campaign is a smokescreen to hide the fact that they have no idea how to fund their policies. They are trying to convince people that they could do so by closing tax loopholes, but what they would do is take away measures that assist industry and introduce those that would cost jobs and assist our competitors.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general agreement on tariffs and trade provides
    1268
    important trade opportunities, not just for countries such as Britain but for developing countries? Removal of the trade barriers will give them the chance of export-led growth to benefit their economies and bring about prosperity.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I entirely agree with that. My hon. Friend will know that, at the Commonwealth conference, we agreed that a number of Commonwealth countries—including less-developed and developing countries—would send a mission to the main Governments around the world in the GATT negotiations, to ensure that there was a satisfactory settlement. I noticed yesterday that Malaysia, on behalf of the less-developed countries, had hailed the round as a victory for common sense.
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Worthington: Why have the Government put 7p on income tax, or its equivalent?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not very good at listening, or he would have heard the answer a good deal earlier, but I will tell him what the Government have done.
    The Government have got interest rates down to the lowest levels for 16 years; inflation at the lowest level for 26 years; unemployment falling, while it rises everywhere else in Europe; growth that is faster than in any other country in Europe; a GATT deal to benefit industry; retail sales up; and a whole range of other economic improvements. That is the Christmas message to bring a smile to people's faces next year—not the misleading questions asked by the Labour party.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the successful conclusion of the world trade negotiations.
In Geneva yesterday, trade negotiators from 117 countries reached the most wide-ranging agreement ever. After seven years of long, hard and often fraught negotiations, it is a superb outcome. It is a result for which industry, commerce and consumers alike have pressed; it is a conclusion for which this Government have worked tirelessly through many crises, when protectionism threatened British markets and British jobs.
The new GATT settlement will help British industry by bringing down barriers to exports of manufactured goods and services. It will give manufacturers greater protection against piracy of their copyright, patents and designs. It will bring down prices for consumers—particularly of food, electronics and other manufactured goods; and it will strengthen the world trading system against unfair practices by individual countries.
Britain is the fifth largest exporter in the world of goods and commercial services. We export more per person than either the United States or Japan. Our markets are already among the most open. We stand, therefore, to be one of the biggest gainers from cuts in worldwide tariffs, quotas and other restrictions.
Sharp reductions in some very high tariffs in the United States and Japan will help Britain in strategic markets. The overall tariff reductions, across all countries of the world, will be around 40 per cent. An independent study by McGraw-Hill has indicated that a new GATT agreement could add up to 4 per cent. to our national output, generating up to 400,000 extra jobs over the next decade.
The European economies, as a group, are estimated to be the biggest single gainer; so the GATT deal can be expected to give a much-needed boost to confidence and recovery in our biggest export markets.
As late as last weekend, there was a real and frightening danger that negotiations might unravel. The world faced a choice between a retreat into protectionism, slump and higher unemployment, and free trade, growth and jobs. Happily, the right choice has been made. The director general of the CBI has rightly called this outcome
"a momentous and welcome event".
This Government have fought consistently to keep the negotiations going. It has been a long struggle. Last year, we faced the prospect not only of failure, but of a lurch into trade war between Europe and the United States.
Exports from Europe were threatened by new and punitive American tariffs. We were able to use our presidency of the European Community to get both sides back to the negotiating table and make progress on farm trade. We encouraged the new United States Administration to extend congressional authority in order to permit the GATT round to be concluded. We pressed for the agreement on tariffs at last summer's Tokyo summit —another crucial meeting and another crucial building block in the final result.
At this autumn's Commonwealth summit, we launched a special mission to all the key Governments of the developed world. This sent the clearest possible signal on behalf of one quarter of the world's population that free
1270
trade was a prize for developing countries too. Trade, more than aid, is the most certain route to economic development.
I believe that very great credit is due to Sir Leon Brittan, the European Community's negotiator; and to Peter Sutherland, the director general of GATT. But others have played a crucial part, including the United States negotiator, Micky Kantor. All three had the courage to take on their tasks at a time when it was far from certain that they would be rewarded by success.
Let me outline the main features of the agreement. First, excellent progress has been made on industrial goods but final details are still being worked out. A number of our largest export markets will move towards the total abolition of tariffs in industries which include pharmaceuticals, steel products and spirits. For example, the Scotch whisky industry, which already has exports totalling about £2 billion a year, will benefit from the complete abolition of Japanese tariffs.
Cuts in high United States tariffs on scientific equipment, chemicals, steel and ceramics, for example, will help in one of our biggest markets. Our textile manufacturers will gain from tariff cuts in the United States, and gain greater access to many economies along the Pacific rim.
Secondly, for the first time agriculture will be fully covered by GATT rules. Tariffs are being cut and subsidies reduced substantially, offering families in this country the prospect of lower prices of staple foods. In Europe, we have already begun the process of reducing farm production subsidies. Overall, those subsidies cost every family around £20 a week. The changes to the common agricultural policy which are already agreed, should—if passed on to the consumer—over a period lead to price cuts equal to 20p off a pound of beef or 6p off a pound of butter. Under the GATT agreement, other countries—notably, Japan and the United States—will now have to cut their agriculture tariff subsidies as well.
Thirdly, for the first time we have an international set of rules for free trade in services—the fastest growing sector of the world economy. Services account for two thirds of our output in the United Kingdom but only about one quarter of our exports; so, if we can break down barriers to trade, there is great potential for growth. The services covered range from insurance to consultancy. Many countries have made commitments on financial, telecommunication and transport services. This is only a start. Further negotiations with the United States must follow on maritime and financial services. But in the meantime we have maintained the City of London in a position in which it will attract new international business.
Fourthly, with regard to so-called intellectual property, the law of the jungle still rules in too much of the world. Expensive research and development by British pharmaceutical companies can be pirated—in effect, stolen—by countries which offer no protection for patents. The same is true of Britain's record industry, which estimates that as much as half of its market in the developing world is stolen by pirates. For the first time, we now have an agreed set of international rules on which we can begin to rely in our fight to give these industries the markets which they have a right to expect.
Free trade increases the need for businesses to be internationally competitive, but in Britain, we have world-class companies ready for the challenge. This new GATT settlement removes the threat of collapse in the

1271
world trade system—a system on which economic growth has been based for nearly half a century. It extends the benefits of trading rules into vast new areas of business. It brings further welcome reductions in tariffs on British goods. it is a platform for recovery, growth and jobs in Britain, the European Community and the rest of the world. I commend it to the House.
Mr. John Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The Opposition also welcome the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. It has been a long and torturous negotiation, but the result, although long overdue, is an important step forward for the world economy. Having had responsibility for the Tokyo round, I know how difficult and detailed such negotiations can be.
Preserving an open and fair trading system is vital for growth, jobs and prosperity not just in this country but round the world. The dangers of beggar-my-neighbour protectionism must always be resisted.
The GATT agreement is, however, only a start. Does the Prime Minister agree that, for Britain to succeed, we must put far more effort into promoting our export performance in manufacturing and services? Will the Government recognise that following the deal, it is now even more vital that we invest in people and in their skills to ensure that we succeed in international trade by competing on the quality of the goods that we produce and the skills of our work force rather than on low wages and a self-defeating spiral of low skills and poor job security?
On the details of the Geneva agreement, I welcome the new agreements on intellectual property, which tackle the piracy of counterfeit goods and provide security for British companies that invest in the research and development of new products.
On the failure to reach a settlement on trade in financial services, is it the case that access to trade in those services in the United States will remain restricted? That is clearly a matter of considerable concern to the financial services industry in Britain. What steps do the Government intend to take to push forward negotiations to include financial services fully within the GATT framework?
On the environment, will the new Multilateral Trade Organisation be given a remit to recognise the importance in the modern world of linking economic development with environmental protection?
What changes have been made to the Blair house agreement to accommodate French agricultural interests? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the deal in no way prejudices the urgent need to continue to reform and control the costs of the common agricultural policy? In relation to the proposed MTO, which will supersede the GATT secretariat, are we satisfied with the procedures for trade disputes? Can we be assured that the MTO will cover concerns for environmental protection and fair employment standards?
Does the Prime Minister agree that steps should also be taken to strengthen the role of the International Labour Organisation, and in particular to encourage enforcement of its conventions on fair labour standards and especially to help stamp out child labour? Although we welcome the benefits to consumers at the prospect of reduced tariffs on textile imports, surely no one in this country wants to buy products made by children in sweatshops that have no concern for basic human rights.
Although GATT offers important trading benefits for the developing world as a whole, do the Government
1272
recognise the special difficulties for Africa, which will probably gain little from this specific agreement? For that reason, can I urge the Government and the international community to do much more to reduce and write off the outstanding debts of the poorest countries? While trade is vital to the expansion of the world economy, can more be done to encourage new lending, investment and official aid so that all regions in the world can participate in the economic growth that we hope will occur?
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with the specific points that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has raised.
On the question of promoting exports, I am delighted to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, at present, our exports are running at record levels. As he will know, we have provided more extensive and cheaper export cover to assist our export promotion. We have reorganised most of our overseas postings to ensure that greater assistance is given to British business men abroad.
A large number of trade missions have been led by senior Ministers and others in the Government, most of whom have come back with substantial order books. At the moment, we are examining what further measures can be taken to provide an even better service for our exporters in the future. I have no doubt that, with the reduction of tariffs overseas and the increased scope in services and in manufacturing, there is a remarkable opportunity for British companies, at a time when they are competitive and in a position to take advantage of that opportunity. We shall certainly proceed with that.
I share with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the regret that we did not get further on financial services, because it was not possible for the various countries to agree on a final conclusion. Some progress has been made. The sector is now covered by trade rules and there have been a number of major gains for United Kingdom companies. For example, United Kingdom banks and insurance companies will be guaranteed the right to do business in Canada on the same basis as United States and Canadian firms, although it is disappointing that a fuller result for that sector has not been achieved. We have fought hard to ensure that openness in the European Community market will be maintained and we won that battle in Brussels.
There is no question that development will be at the expense of the environment, and I do not believe that anyone seriously imagines that that will be a problem.
There were detailed renegotiations on Blair house at the margins some time ago. There were no changes to the Blair house agreement as a result of the European Community meeting over the weekend and expenditure on the common agricultural policy will be restrained under the ceilings that were agreed at the Edinburgh summit, in terms of the financial perspective of the Community.
I do not have any quarrel with the outcome on the trade dispute mechanism. I do not have the same affection for the ILO as the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that is a difference between us, as I am sure that he knows—but I share his views about child labour—[Interruption.] I am about to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman precisely what has been done about it, if he will listen. The activities of child labour lead to dumping. In the Community we have powerful mechanisms to act against dumping and they were improved so that action could be taken more

1273
speedily at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
As for Africa, it is the view of the African states that this GATT round is of assistance to them. They made that perfectly clear at the Commonwealth conference where a large number of African states, both rich and poor— [Interruption.] Hon. Members may be interested to know that those members of the Commonwealth wholly support the outcome of the GATT round. The area of greatest difficulty, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who is not in her place, has said, is sub-Saharan Africa. As I said to the hon. Lady, if it turns out that the sub-Saharan countries face particular difficulty, our long historical connection means that we shall certainly do what we can to provide further assistance, both bilaterally and in other ways.
To ensure that they get further assistance with their debt, Opposition Members may be aware of the Trinidad terms initiative that I launched in 1989-90, which is by far the most generous write-off of debt that the world has ever seen. We have written off a large amount of debt under than and we are still pressing some people in the Paris Club to do so. I believe that we shall be successful. It is the view of the countries that benefit under those Trinidad terms that it is by far the most comprehensive and most generous write-off of capital and revenue debt that has ever been proposed and carried through.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a long time since the start of the negotiations, when I spent a happy week in Punta del Este with Mr. Alan Clark, among others? He has not yet described it in his diaries. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the achievements of the British delegation? I especially congratulate Sir Leon Brittan, as my right hon. Friend rightly did, and we must not forget Mr. Arthur Dunkel, who was the director general of GATT for many years, and who was a tremendous support in the early days of this round.
In agreeing with my right hon. Friend about the importance of the conclusions to trade throughout the world and to prosperity, may I ask him to say a little more about what will happen to financial services? At the start of the negotiations, the American delegation was among the keenest that there should be freedom of trade in financial services. What has happened? Are there now proposals to proceed with the negotiations at a later date in some other forum? What will happen on financial services? It must be very much in the interests of Britain, as well as of many other delegations, that the process should not come to an end and that further steps should be taken.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend about that point. He is right in his supposition that there will be further negotiations on financial services; I hope that they can be carried forward speedily. It is unsatisfactory that we did not get further on financial services on this occasion. Having voiced that disappointment, I believe that one should not lose sight of the fact that this is by far the widest and most comprehensive world trade settlement, with large areas previously not within
1274
GATT now brought within it. It provides for a much more liberal world trading system and it is the biggest single advance in free trade for many years.
My right hon. Friend speaks with some knowledge of the matter. He was Minister for Trade and President of the Council of Ministers during the early stages of the GATT round. I join in his congratulations to Sir Leon Brittan and to Arthur Dunkel. They can both be proud of what they have achieved.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister is right to say that this is a good day for the world and a good day for Britain. However, is it not the case that, for Britain to take advantage of increasingly open world markets, we shall have to do much more to build a high-value-added, high-investment, high-skill economy than has been done so far under this Government?
The Prime Minister is right to welcome the extensive debt write-off and the development assistance. However, if third-world countries are to have access to the opportunities that the end of the Uruguay round has presented, more attention will have to be paid to that area.
Many people will have greatly welcomed the Prime Minister's comment to the leader of the Labour party that he recognised that development damaged the environment. Does he, therefore, agree that almost the first task of the new Multilateral Trade Organisation should be seriously to consider environmental factors and the means by which we can incorporate environmental costs into the world trading system?
The Prime Minister: The fact that our exports are growing at a remarkable rate while overseas markets are very flat, especially in the European Community, suggests that to an extent greater than that for which the right hon. Gentleman gives them credit, our British exports are adding substantial value and are penetrating markets deeply as a result. One illustration is the German market. It is in substantial decline at the moment, yet British exports to Germany have increased; we have taken a much larger share of a much smaller market. That is substantially because of our competitiveness and because of the high-value-added nature of so many British exports.
There is sometimes a tendency—I do not attribute this to the right hon.gentleman—to think especially of manufacturing in the old sense of large, labour-intensive manufacturing industries. In the constituencies of almost every hon. Member, there are now small, medium and high technology businesses which are, in essence, manufacturing industries. They now export around the world, not least to such places as Japan, against very stiff competition.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about debt write-off. The original Toronto terms, introduced by Lord Lawson when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Trinidad terms have been well ahead of what the rest of the world was prepared to contemplate in terms of debt write-off at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the third world. One of the most comprehensive ways in which we can help countries in the third world is not to close our markets to their exports. That is why I welcome so much of the Uruguay round outcome. It opens markets to the third world to a far greater extent than ever before. The outcome is not perfect; it does not go all the way. However, it does

1275
a great deal more than ever before and offers substantial incentives to third-world countries to develop their exports.
Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the enormous effort that he has put into the agreement which is of great benefit to Britain. Does he agree, however, that there is considerable resentment in this country at the intransigence of the French, who demanded compensation for their farmers from the Community budget as a condition of agreeing to the GATT talks? Will he tell us how much that that will cost the EC budget, and what our proportion will be?
The Prime Minister: A number of countries during the round were pretty intransigent from time to time, although perhaps the difficulties faced in France got rather higher profile publicity than most. I know that the GATT agreement has caused the French Prime Minister considerable domestic difficulties. I do not particularly wish to add to them now. It is worth looking at what the agricultural agreement does: it reduces Community tariffs by 36 per cent. and cuts exports subsidies substantially. That was the essence of the Blair house agreement, and that has been maintained despite what may be said in other capitals.
Mr. Barry Jones: Where does the British aerospace industry stand? What is the fate of the airbus? Why was the issue of aerospace taken out of GATT? Is the vendetta by the American President against airbus now over?
The Prime Minister: The reason why those aspects of civil aviation were taken out of the round at the last minute was simply that agreement on them could not be reached. But the British aerospace industry will continue to be covered by the present Community and United States bilateral arrangements. That means that the position stays as it is now and that it has not—as the hon. Gentleman and many others feared—been worsened by the outcome of this round.
It has been agreed that the Community and the United States will now negotiate for another year. I should say, for it might reassure the hon. Gentleman, that the United States has agreed to negotiate on the basis of the GATT Committee chairman's draft text, which currently provides for a reduction in United States indirect support for its industry. The Commission, as our negotiator, will continue to insist on the inclusion of aero engines and indirect support. The outcome should protect United Kingdom interests. The hon. Gentleman need have no doubt that we will press our negotiators very firmly on that point.
Mr. Edward Garnier: My right hon. Friend will recall that my constituency in Leicestershire has many farmers and many people who are engaged in the knitwear, hosiery and textile industries. Does he recall that, following the Tokyo summit, he informed the House about his hopes for a reduction of the United States tariff barriers for British textiles? Will his hopes that we shared when he returned from Tokyo be realised following the GATT agreement? I join other hon. Members in congratulating him and his team, particularly Sir Leon Brittan, in their achievement.
The Prime Minister: The changes to the textile industry are helpful, but not as helpful as we expected them
1276
to be when we returned from Tokyo. The changes since Tokyo have meant that the extremely favourable changes that we had then are now less favourable. Securing improved market access for our textile exports was a priority for us in the negotiations.
The agreement that the industry negotiated some months ago improved market access. We have been able to build on that in the Uruguay round and significant cuts have been agreed in a number of United States textile peaks. That is very valuable for our textile exporters and it is something that they have long sought. That is undiluted good news. It is not as good news as it looked as though it would be after Tokyo. Good news it is; superb news it is not.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Prime Minister explain the phrase "unfair practices" which, according to his statement, are controlled under GATT? Does it, for example, include any control of child labour, or is he relying entirely on anti-dumping practices? He should know that, when dealing with the EC, most industries find it dilatory and inefficient in dealing with anti-dumping practices. Should not GATT have a social clause to give people in other countries health and safety at work rights, and trade union rights to ensure that they are employed under proper and decent working conditions? Are we not exploiting workers and child labour badly in order to receive their products in this country?
The Prime Minister: As I said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, just today the Community improved its mechanisms for dealing with dumping, in terms of producing a more speedy response. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that, sometimes, across the Community, it has taken longer to respond to dumping than might ideally have been the case. I believe that that was corrected in the agreements made by my right hon. Friend the other day. We are trying to deal with the problem. The other circumstances that he set out lead to goods being produced and then sold at below the proper world market level. That is the definition of dumping, so I believe that we shall catch the practices about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
Mr. James Paice: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on what has been achieved, particularly in agriculture, heralding as it does the end of competitively subsidised dumping on the world market and, we hope, the gradual phasing out of price support and the iniquitous set-aside scheme with which we in Europe have got stuck. While I recognise that it was probably inevitable, although regrettable, that the French had to be bought off with extra compensation, if necessary, for their small farmers, will he ensure that not only does that not exceed the guidelines already laid down for expenditure but that it is not paid out at the expense of compensation already agreed for British farmers?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps I should make clear to the House what happened with the French over the weekend. No agreement to provide the French with what I saw described in one Sunday newspaper as "billions of pounds" was made last weekend. The agreement reached was that the ceilings on expenditure in the Community will remain as agreed at Edinburgh before the Blair house agreement was renegotiated. The view of the Commission,

1277
and most of the member states, is that the GATT agreement is compatible with common agricultural policy reform, so the question of extra compensation will not arise.
Even if it were to arise, it is agreed that there is no question of increasing the sums of expenditure. It is a free expression to suggest that there will be billions of extra pounds for French farmers. That flatly is not the case. When asked, after the conclusion of the European Council, whether French farmers had won extra money during the Council, I replied, "Not a penny." I reply again, "Not a penny."
Mr. Derek Enright: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recognition that sub-Saharan Africa will benefit little if at all from the GATT negotiations. That is a positive start. Will he look at the wretched rules of origin, which cause so many difficulties for such countries as Guinea-Bissau and Guinea-Conakry in terms of the export of their agricultural and fishery products?
The Prime Minister: I am not familiar with the details of that problem, but I shall seek advice on the rules of origin and have a look at them. To pick up the earlier point about the poorest countries—as I said, a large number of them are sub-Saharan countries—19 of them have benefited from the reduction of $1·75 billion of their debt, under the Trinidad terms.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is European culture really such a pathetic withering little flower that it needs protection by the state? If French films are so good, surely people will flock to see them without state intervention. While the role of Great Britain and the Prime Minister in securing the GATT round was crucial, is it not a shame, given that we believe in free choice and open markets, that we backed that French demand which, in whatever sophistry it is cloaked, is nothing more than an unpleasant combination of censorship and protectionism?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we would have preferred to have reached an agreement on audiovisual matters. A number of others would have preferred such an agreement to be reached. It was not possible. In the circumstances, the only option to protect the gains in the round was to take the audio-visual matters entirely out of the GATT agreement. Like my hon. Friend, I regret that. I hope that we can negotiate a satisfactory arrangement soon.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Given the Prime Minister's earlier answer to the question on the aerospace industry, can he tell us how small aircraft will be affected? There is a potential problem with Jetstream in the Ayrshire area. Will the Prime Minister assure us that that matter will be included in any negotiations with the United States?
The Prime Minister: Small aircraft and engines are included in the discussions. As I understand it, until those discussions are concluded there is no change from the present position.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this settlement of the GATT round comes at a crucial time to give the world economies that extra boost to get them moving again and that, as he has said, we shall benefit from it? Will he use his influence
1278
as Prime Minister to continue to encourage through the export services with the President of the Board of Trade the many—rather too many—small and medium-sized companies that could but do not yet export? If their hand were held a little, they might do that much better.
The Prime Minister: On that last point, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are making a special effort through the business link scheme to do precisely that. My hon. Friend touches on an important point. One should make it clear that the GATT round now having been agreed is not immediately implemented. There will be a ministerial signing session, probably in April 1994. The final Act will need to be ratified by a number of countries. Then it will come into force, probably in late 1995 but conceivably as late as the beginning of 1996.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How can everybody be with us? There are 113 countries that have signed the agreement. Some are bound to be losers. Why does not the Prime Minister admit that the multinational companies are the driving force behind GATT? Britain will be gatted. Of the top 500 multinationals, 278 are either in the United States or Japan and the rest are divided between all the other industrial countries on the Pacific rim. It is a joke if the Prime Minister is trying to convey to the people of Britain that we will benefit. He said the same when the multinationals wanted the common market in 1973; unemployment increased. He said the same about the single market four years ago; again unemployment increased—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not the time for speeches. This is the time for questions. If the hon. Gentleman has a question to put to the Prime Minister, he should do so and then sit down and let us hear the answer.
Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Prime Minister answer this question: since Britain's manufacturing base is now down to 4 million, how on earth can this country leap across the boundaries to increase production? Why does not the Prime Minister tell the truth about what he said about jobs the other day? When I asked him how many jobs had been created, he said 400,000. Already he has stretched the number.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has taken leave of what passes for his senses. I said 400,000 the other day and I said 400,000 today. He should get his facts right for a change. He is wrong again on other matters. Not only is he wrong, but he does not seem to carry with him his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) or the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who have said precisely the reverse.
Mr. Skinner: So what? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall be proved right.
The Prime Minister: If anybody else were as confident about anything as the hon. Gentleman is confident about everything, we would all be rather well off. I for once am prepared to make common cause with the hon. Member for Livingston. I entirely agree with him when, in welcoming the GATT trade deal, he said:
"This will create substantial opportunities for developing countries."
Not only does the hon. Gentleman think that, and he is entirely right, but so do the developing countries. But they, of course, also know less about their interests than the hon.

1279
Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If perhaps the hon. Gentleman had listened a little more carefully—he clearly did not listen the other day about jobs either—he would know that the developing countries in the Commonwealth sent a number of representatives to the main capitals to say how important it was for them to have a GATT agreement. Every single thing that the hon. Gentleman said was copper-bottomed, gold-plated rubbish.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the successful outcome of the Uruguay round and pay tribute to the Government for the role that they have played in bringing it to a successful conclusion. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a downside to this agreement—he referred to it when answering some supplementary questions earlier? Does he accept that, if Britain is to be successful and competitive, it is important that for industries such as textiles and clothing—I could name others—the Government assist by providing an investment incentive? Will my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade do what they can to put pressure on the Treasury to ensure that there are incentives for investment so that British industry can take advantage of the Uruguay round and its successful outcome?
The Prime Minister: We certainly wish to ensure that British manufacturing industry both invests and exports. While my hon. Friend is right that the outcome for the textiles industry was less satisfactory than we had hoped it would be some time ago, the successful conclusion to the round does include a reduction in tariffs in the United Kingdom's main export textiles markets, most crucially, of course, in that of the United States. Therefore there is a better circumstance for textiles, but, as my hon. Friend implied, it is not as good as we had hoped it would be.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Prime Minister accept that there will be a general and warm welcome for the decision to reduce tariff barriers against Scotch whisky—an important, high-quality export-winning product, not least in my constituency, where so many jobs depend on it? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a need to build on the agreement to eradicate the internal excise discrimination in Japan, which continues to breach the 1987 GATT agreement because shochu is protected by a much lower level of tax than Scotch whisky? I believe that the differential between the two products ranges between six and nine.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is right on both points. The tariff reduction on whisky in Japan is from 250 per cent. to zero—it has gone entirely. That is only part of the barrier against Scotch whisky exports in Japan. There are still substantial internal tax barriers. I raised those with Prime Minister Hosokawa when I was in Tokyo some time ago and we wrote to him again last week. We hope to see some movement in the comprehensive tax reform that the Japanese Government are now planning. The present position on internal tax discrimination against Scotch whisky is not satisfactory, and the Government continue to pursue it with the Japanese Government.
Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the successful conclusion to the GATT round, which is a great success for Britain, particularly Conservative Britain which believes and is foremost in free trade. May I press my right hon. Friend on
1280
the common agricultural policy? We all believe that the CAP is far too heavy and costs far too much. In many respects, that may have restricted our negotiating position on the financial services area. Will he assure hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, that we will now press further for greater reductions and a greater freeing of the financial services business in the world?
The Prime Minister: We shall certainly press for greater freeing of financial services. It is very much in our interests. We are one of the world's great providers of financial services, and the more that we can open up European markets—which is now happening—and Japanese and United States markets in particular, the greater the opportunity for the export of British financial services. My hon. Friend is quite right: it is a matter of critical interest to us and I give him my undertaking that we shall pursue it.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I pursue the downside a bit further and refer the Prime Minister to the McGraw-Hill study that he mentioned earlier? What did the study say about identifying the sector of British industry that can now anticipate job losses, and what will be the scale of those job losses?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the net position is estimated to be a growth over 10 years of around 400,000 jobs. Beyond that, it is not really possible to identify in any great detail where there will be growth and contraction. That depends on too many factors for the statistics to have any real value. The calculation of 400,000 jobs is derived from the growth of world trade generally and the implications that that will have for manufacturing industry and the service sector in particular.
Mr. Richard Alexander: I compliment my right hon. Friend on his mastery of his brief this afternoon. Many countries gain an unfair competitive advantage by subsidising their exports. Did the new GATT settlement deal directly with that hidden barrier to free trade?
The Prime Minister: Yes, there are new rules on subsidies, anti-dumping and safeguard action. There are texts in all those areas to deal with unfair practices. They are a good outcome for Britain in particular, and the EC more generally. Disciplines, including a reasonable constraint on developing countries, have been tightened, but the texts are a great improvement on the current GATT rules.
Mr. John McAllion: If, as the Prime Minister claims, the Government champion free trade as a means of helping the developing world, why did Britain abstain in the recent overwhelming vote at the United Nations condemning the United States Government for its illegal and inhuman economic blockade of the Republic of Cuba?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like. I do not know of any country that would deny that this Britiash Conservative Government is one of the most free-trading Governments, in philosophy and practice, of any Government in the world. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) nodding in agreement. He may not necessarily approve, but he does agree.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his outstanding statesmanship during the past two days? Does be accept that his earlier comments on aviation policy suggest that the advantage of current levels of launch aid for aircraft manufacturers who manufacture planes of 100 seats or fewer will remain despite strong USA pressure to do away with that? Does he further accept that my constituents will warmly welcome that on the basis that Jetstream Aircraft is a manufacturer of turbo-prop aircraft?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that there will be no change and I reiterate that the Commission will continue to insist on the inclusion of aero engines and indirect support. As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), the outcome should be to protect the legitimate interests of the United Kingdom industry.
Mr. George Stevenson: I share the Prime Minister's relief at the outcome of the GATT negotiations and his view of the need to reduce support and subsidies for agriculture, but how does that square with the fact that, on 15 November this year, the Government agreed to an increase of half a billion pounds in the draft EC budget for 1994, most of which will subsidise agriculture? Will the Prime Minister give us a clear commitment that there will be no extra support for French agriculture, either within the guideline or otherwise, and that, if there is any prospect of such support, it will not be transferred from other areas of the EC budget, such as the structural fund that is designed to encourage employment?
The Prime Minister: A number of other countries apart from the United Kingdom, such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, would strongly resist any suggestion that money to support agriculture should come from the structural or cohesion funds. In our discussions at the weekend at the European Council, Prime Ministers of some of the southern states made it perfectly clear that, were there any suggestions from any of the northern states-it would
1282
certainly not come from this northern state—that money to fund agriculture should come out of the structural or cohesion funds, they would strongly oppose that, and they would be right to do so.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the consequence of the GATT that third-world countries will be able to earn far more foreign exchange for themselves and therefore far more self-respect? Is not that better than the begging bowl approach so favoured by the Opposition?
The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Independent calculations are that the gain to developing countries from opening markets under these GATT round considerations will be greater than the total amount of aid from all the western democracies and Japan added together.
Mr. Roy Hughes: With all the euphoria following the GATT, may I remind the Prime Minister that, some ten years ago, there was a traumatic upheaval in the British steel industry, when many thousands of people were made redundant and whole communities were decimated? The same development does not appear to have taken place in Germany, France or Italy, where subsidies still abound. When will the Government take firm action to look after our steel industry and prevent further redundancies?
The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not draw the conclusion that most other people would have drawn, which is that British Steel is now a world-class company trading profitably because it is under private ownership. I hope, therefore, that there will be a good deal of support from Opposition Members in future for the privatisation of industries. The large number of industries that were in the public sector and very expensive to taxpayers are now in the private sector yielding resources to taxpayers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we must now move on.

Business of the House
4.21 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for the first week back after the Christmas Adjournment.
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
Money resolution relating to the Non-Domestic Rating Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 JANUARY—Proceedings on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill.
Motion on the Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order.
THURSDAY 13 JANuARY—Opposition Day (First Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 14 JANUARY—Private Members' Motions.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday, 12 January to consider European Community document No. 6625/93 relating to special rehabilitation support programmes in developing countries.
In the spirit of Christmas, not to say Jopling, even though neither has been much in evidence this week, it may assist the House to know that, subject to the progress of Bills, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday 31 March, until Tuesday 12 April.
[Wednesday 12 January:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 6625/93, Overseas Aid.
Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 79-xxxiii (1992–93); HC 79-xxxix (1992–93).]
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Lord President for fulfilling his undertaking to give us an Opposition day in the new year, and the dates of the Easter recess. Will the Lord President warn the Home Secretary that, when it comes to debating the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, Members on both sides of the House, with the exception of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), will be anxious to discover whether—contrary to assurances that the Home Secretary seemed to give in the Queen's Speech—the Government intend to use that Bill to make sharp cuts in the compensation paid to victims of criminal violence? It will be of particular concern, at least on this side of the House, if we discover that Ministers have misled the House on such an issue.
Will the Lord President confirm that his announcement about the handling of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill implies that the Bill will be put through all its stages in one day without agreement? The Opposition regard that as a further dangerous precedent, all the more so because it is completely unnecessary.
We recognise that the Bill may not be controversial —although, as it has not yet been published, we must trust the Government on that matter. However, it will affect every British business. Whatever problems hon. Members may have in scrutinising such legislation, people outside suffer most when Bills are not handled properly.
I remind the Lord President that, of the last two Bills on this subject, one was given 13 days in this place and six weeks in all, and the second 15 days and two months in all,
1284
from start to finish. There are still three months before this Bill needs to be on the statute book, so, on the basis of experience, the argument that there is some pressure does not stand up.
I am convinced that many people in local authorities and in business will not thank the Government for this speed. The Bill will hardly be here before it is gone again, and they will have had no time to look at it.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, finally, to press the Secretary of State for Social Security to come here as soon as possible to respond to the Select Committee report on the Child Support Agency? Does he realise that Christmas is being ruined for thousands of British families because of fear and uncertainty caused by the operations of that agency? It really is not good enough for the Government to drag their feet over this.
Mr. Newton: I assume that the right hon. Lady's thanks for the Opposition day debate were also made in the spirit of Christmas, for which I am grateful.
The White Paper giving details of the new tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation—to answer the right hon. Lady's point about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—was published yesterday, and doubtless she will have studied it. Our scheme is the most generous in the world. I understand that we pay more than all other European Union countries put together.
As for the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, local authorities are under a duty to send out their bills in good time, and it is important that they know in good time what bills they are to send out, so as to avoid uncertainty for businesses and to avoid the risk that authorities might send out bills on one basis and then have to send out another set of bills on another basis. I do not accept the right hon. Lady's presumptions about the leisurely way in which the House can deal with this matter. It is our hope that the House will deal with all stages of the Bill on Wednesday 12 January.
The last such Bill took only two and a half hours on Second Reading and 20 minutes for its remaining stages—that is to say, less than three hours. On the proposal that I have announced this afternoon, there would be about twice that much time. We shall see whether the Labour party wishes to proceed in a way that meets the convenience both of business and of local authorities.
The right hon. Lady will know that the Secretary of State for Social Security is carefully and urgently examining the report of the Select Committee on the agency—and other representations that he has received but —I cannot at this moment give an undertaking about the timing of a statement.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is now nine months since we had a debate on agriculture? Did he note that, during the Prime Minister's statement on GATT and subsequent questions, there was no mention of the effect on farms, farmgate prices or farm incomes? Is he aware of the considerable concern among all hon. Members about the likely impact on agriculture of the GATT deal, whatever its other benefits?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us of an opportunity to debate early-day motion 134, standing in the names of members of my party and dealing with the hill livestock compensatory allowances?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances)

1285
(Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2924), dated 29th November, 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be annulled.]
He will know that many Members from the hill areas are anxious about the effect of all these proposals on hill communities.
Mr. Newton: I shall of course bear the hon. Gentleman's request in mind. There may be some opportunity to discuss with his party how to handle the matter, although, at the moment, because of the Labour party's position, it is not open to me to discuss it in the usual way through the usual channels. I understand his point, and I will take it into account.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I welcome the announcement that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is to have its Second Reading on the first day back? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of us hope to table a Back-Bench amendment to the Bill on the age of consent for homosexual acts, as we wish to see that changed? Could my right hon. Friend tell me whether it will be possible, under the long title of the Bill, so to do with an amendment that will be in order? Can he assist us by telling us whether we can have a full day's clear debate on this important issue, with free votes at the end?
Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, you at least will have registered that my hon. Friend, in her characteristically engaging way, is inviting me in one answer to usurp your prerogatives and those of the Chief Whip. I hesitate to do so, but I am sure that you and he will take account of her request.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday's GATT announcement, on which we have just spent a great deal of time, coincided with the announcement of further appalling job losses in the special steel works of South Yorkshire, which are among the best in the world? Is he aware of any concern among his colleagues on the Treasury Bench about the fact that those job losses have been caused by the subsidy of our German and Spanish competitors? Those competitors, with their Governments, seem determined to take out our superior capacity, despite the existence of the powerful weapons to which the Prime Minister referred.
Do not the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues understand that, as our vital and strategically important industrial base disappears, this country will become little better than a banana republic, and that most people will not be able even to afford tropical fruit?
Mr. Newton: I do not for a moment accept the points which the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his remarks. He will know that the Government have made clear their views about the issue of subsidies to other steel industries within the European Union. He will also know of the range of measures which the Government have taken, the most recent being their efforts to achieve a successful outcome of the GATT round. That is designed to improve the competitiveness of this country and the opportunities for our production to be exported.
Sir Peter Emery: In the spirit of Christmas, as invoked by my right hon. Friend, will he save me from being pestered by the press and ensure that the Government
1286
give some response to the first report of the Procedure Committee on the Select Committee structure for Northern Ireland, which was published in the first week of December? Would it not be helpful if my right hon. Friend could ensure that the Government did something about it as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: First, I express my gratitude—and, I am sure, that of the House—to my right hon. Friend and the Committee for the work that they did, not just on that report but on the Committee's earlier reports on these matters.
I am happy to inform my right hon. Friend and the House that, having regard to the report's conclusions, the Government have decided to embark on consultations with other parties on the basis that the time for a Northern Ireland Select Committee has now come. The House will be made aware of the outcome of those consultations in due course. In the meantime, I am sure that the House will welcome the intention to increase parliamentary accountability for the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Since it was the Leader of the House's PPS who prevented the House from debating Ferranti—a tragedy that puts at risk many thousands of jobs—will he arrange for a ministerial statement before we rise? Clearly there would have been a ministerial statement in that debate. Can we have that statement before the close of play tomorrow?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give any such undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman. I would make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was also denied an opportunity of debate by the tactics which were pursued by the Opposition earlier in the evening. I understand that the Chair pointed out at the time that what my hon. Friend did—he is as entitled as any other hon. Member to the procedures of the House—was no more than what had been done by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on Friday.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the actions of British Coal at Wearmouth colliery in Sunderland? British Coal closed the pit and offered it to be leased to the private sector. However, British Coal is daily making the pit less attractive to private colliery companies by removing vital roof supports and coal-cutting equipment for which British Coal can have no possible use.
Although British Coal does not understand it, the colliery has a bright future in the private sector, which would safeguard jobs in the mining engineering industry in my constituency, and lead to the re-employment of many colliers in Sunderland.
Mr. Newton: That is an operational matter for British Coal, which has given assurances that no equipment will be removed unnecessarily. In view of my hon. Friend's concern, I will draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 284 concerning the life of Manuel Salazar, who is on death row in the United States?
[That this House is appalled that the death penalty has been passed on Manuel Salazar, a Mexican American, following the death of a police officer at Joliet, Illinois, in

1287
September 1984; notes that Salazar was unarmed and had been beaten by the police officer who subsequently died when his own gun went off; notes that after Salazar fled to Mexico he was illegally and forcibly returned to the United States of America where he was sentenced to death in 1985; notes that the Illinois Supreme Court is to hear arguments for a re-trial following the emergence of new evidence but is disturbed that the Attorney General is opposing this and asking for an execution date to be set; is further disturbed that his case is also before the Mexican courts for violation of his rights there by US agents; and therefore requests his release and return to Mexico.]
Does he recognise that many people in Britain are revolted by the prospect of the execution of a man who was illegally brought from Mexico to the United States? Will he convey that concern to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, so that the revulsion of millions of people in Britain at the use of the death penalty can be passed on to the United States Government?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring those sentiments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but so far, in all the circumstances, the British Government have not considered it appropriate to seek to intervene in that particular case.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: My right hon. Friend will be aware that at least two Labour Members have cited GATT as a reason for debate on other subjects. As it is so important to the British industrial sector, will he give us some idea of when we will have a debate on GATT itself?
Mr. Newton: I cannot at present give my hon. Friend such an indication. Obviously, we will have to consider that, in looking at the business after the first week back that I have announced this afternoon. I will bear her request in mind. Meanwhile she may like to note that right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be answering questions on the first Wednesday back.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for a debate on water quality and the cost of cleaning up the water supply? Many of my constituents are concerned not only about the cost of water but about the subsidiarity arrangements recently negotiated by the British Government, which they feel will lead to a reduction in the quality of their drinking water. It is an extremely important issue.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is labouring under some misapprehension if she thinks that the consequence of decisions in the subsidiarity context is expected to reduce the quality of British drinking water, which is very high. The issue is the pace at which further improvement can be assessed in a way that is manageable for the industry, not least for the consumers who have to pay for them.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind that there are more manufacturing jobs in the London borough of Ealing than in any other London borough, may I again press my right hon. Friend for a debate rather than a statement or questions and answers on GATT, as it has central importance to jobs in my constituency and the borough I represent?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend manifestly can press me, and has pressed me, on that issue. I will, of course, take account of his pressure, but I cannot respond more than that this afternoon.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I welcome the response of the Leader of the House to the question from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee? In the season of good will when there is great emphasis on the needy, can we have a debate in the very near future on our overall contribution to the Overseas Development Agency, bearing in mind there is still great need in the developing countries despite the hopeful bonus from the GATT?
Mr. Newton: Many people on both sides of the House would welcome an opportunity to debate that subject. Again, I will bear it in mind, but I cannot at this moment give any specific undertakings.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it possible to have a debate on the antics of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which is currently instigating a judicial review to prevent the local Government inquiry into the structure of local government from proceeding? The action is being driven by the leader of Lancashire county council, who is power-mad and waving the charge payers' cheque book around. It is estimated that the cost may be about £500,000, when that local authority is for ever saying how strapped it is for cash. We should have a debate as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks will be registered by those in Lancashire who in due course will have further opportunities to vote in local elections. Meanwhile, the Government have successfully resisted the application for an injunction. The review programme is unchanged, the reviews are going ahead and we shall certainly contest Lancashire's arguments for judicial review.
Mr. John Denham: May I draw attention to early-day motions 260 and 261?
[That this House notes the SIB inquiry into the mis-selling of personal pensions to members of occupational pension schemes, but also notes with concern that a third of all personal pension schemes are cancelled within two years leading to the loss of investors' savings, that many individuals have been encouraged to opt-out of SERPS for inappropriate personal pensions, and that the churning of investment schemes including endowment mortgages, has been widespread in recent years leading to further losses for savers; and, therefore, urges the Government to establish an inquiry into the regulation and management of the personal financial services industry.]
While today's news that the Treasury Select Committee will investigate the sale of personal pensions to occupational pension scheme members is welcome, does the Leader of the House accept that that is just the tip of the iceberg? Some £200 million a year of savers' money has been lost through the early cancellation of pension funds, and there has been a widespread mis-selling of personal pension schemes to members of the state earnings-related pensions scheme. Will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity for a major debate on the regulation and management of the personal and financial services industry?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters, and he knows that the extent of non-compliance is being thoroughly investigated by the Securities and Investment Board. A proper time for such a debate would be when we have the results of its inquiries. The board has the full support of the Government in its inquiry, and the Chancellor has made it clear that he expects the review to be conducted quickly, and appropriate remedies put in place.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate about the responsibilities of employers for employees? I am a member of the Employment Committee and I am not bothered if I have to remain in the House until 4 o'clock in the morning, but the staff of the Palace of Westminster were also kept here until 4 o'clock this morning by the machinations of Opposition Members. The business being conducted was so important that at least 30 or 40 Opposition Members bothered to remain until 3 o'clock:
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is asking for. Will he make his point clearly to the Leader of the House?
Mr. Robathan: I am asking for a debate on the responsibilities of employers towards employees, to ensure that female recorders and women who work in the Tea Room are not kept in the House until the small hours of the night by the machinations of Opposition Members. We had one hour's nonsense from one hon. Member, and another Opposition Member claimed to see strangers. He should get more glasses. It is hypocritical of the Opposition to say that they care about the rights of employees. They do not consider the rights of the employees of the House, but treat them all in a cavalier fashion.
Mr. Newton: I hope that members of the Opposition Front Bench, and other Opposition Members who contributed to those proceedings, will consider what my hon. Friend has said. I regret the inconvenience caused to the staff of the House—not least because the public outside will regard it as not a very sensible way for the Opposition to behave and for the House to conduct its affairs.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Returning to the question of GATT, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that that very important treaty will be debated? It is extraordinary that the French Parliament and the United States Congress can debate and vote on it. Surely the House can at least debate it?
Mr. Newton: I have made it clear that I will bear in mind the various requests that have been made for a debate on GATT. I do not dismiss them, and I will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the economic and social implications of investment in transport infrastructure? This would enable me to draw attention to the real economic advantages that the widening of the M5 has brought to my constituents in Worcester, and also the disadvantages it has brought to its neighbours in the villages of Whittington and Norton as a result of the noise generated because of inadequate soundproofing on the motorway.
Mr. Newton: I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
1290
for Transport. I know from experience in my own constituency that one of the problems with road schemes is that, when advantages are brought to one part of an area, disadvantages are brought to another. But I cannot promise an early debate on that matter.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House, over the Christmas recess, look at the arrangements for Question Time? He will have seen today that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Prime Minister answered questions directly, particularly the questions about the £9 a week increase in taxes for the average family. Instead, they started asking questions of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor. That was quite ridiculous.
I have been in the House for fourteen and a half years, and I have seen Question Time deteriorate. I go to seminars for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and tell the Members of Parliament of newly democratic countries that Question Time is the time when the Executive is accountable to Parliament. That is clearly less and less the case. Will the Leader of the House look into the matter and report to the House when we come back in January?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee not long ago undertook some consideration of questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am about to. I was here when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was answering questions. I thought his answers were a model of precision and clarity. I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition answer any question at all.
Mr. Bob Dunn: The House would welcome an early opportunity to debate local government in inner London. Many of my hon. Friends would welcome an opportunity to demonstrate that the worst councils—in terms of empty houses, poor collection of the council tax —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rates."]—and the provision of services—are councils controlled by the Opposition parties. They are a nightmare for the people of London.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and the reaction of Opposition Members shows the embarassment they feel when complaints are made. I will look for an early opportunity to debate the matter, but not before Christmas.
Mr. David Winnick: As to criminality, will there be a statement from the Home Secretary about why a person being deported from the United States —who is unfortunately a British citizen—will be allowed to come here? That person is being deported because he was involved in Nazi mass murders and the killing, in April 1942, of two Soviet prisoners, apart from other things.
It is not wrong that Britain should be considered a safe haven for such war criminals? Bearing in mind the fact that the chances of a prosecution under the War Crimes Act 1991 are remote, his United Kingdom citizenship should be cancelled and he should be told that under no circumstances will we allow British soil to be contaminated by his presence.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. That person is a British citizen, and we have no choice but to accept him if he returns here. Any allegations that he has

1291
committed criminal acts will be investigated in the same way as allegations against any other British citizen. That is the right way to approach the matter.
Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend find time, early in the new year, for the Secretary of State for Transport to report to the House about the outcome of his Department's review of the crossrail project? I hope that the Crossrail Bill will be able to proceed without delay through the remainder of its Committee stage.
Mr. Newton: I will bring my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House give some Christmas cheer to my embittered constituent Kevin James, who, when he was a serving soldier in Northern Ireland, was severely injured in a bomb blast which killed his companion, Bombardier Wells, and two children? He has had a demand from the Child Support Agency for £1,000, and it has doubled his maintenance payments, which he cannot pay because he has no disposable income.
Can we have a debate on the agency so that I can ask the Prime Minister why, in Mr. James's terms, when he has put his life on the line "for people such as John Major", he is now being ruined by the same man? How is he going to help his ex-wife if he can no longer afford to travel to the north of England to see his children or to buy them Christmas presents?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I am not in a position to comment on a specific case. He will have observed, however, that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People are both present; I am sure that they will look into the matter.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend allow some time early in the new year for a debate on procedures of the House, particularly to discuss the methodology by which the Opposition parties could put down amendments to Treasury motions? Clearly, the whole issue needs to be simplified for those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Newton: I have already said that it might be appropriate for someone to run a seminar for the Opposition dealing with the tabling of amendments to Budget motions. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether it would be appropriate for me to do that; but those who now sit opposite me muttering may care to seek further advice.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does the Leader of the House recall the critical remarks made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who accused the Prime Minister of political funk for sitting on the report on the privatisation of the Post Office for more than a year? Is it not a tragedy that the chairman of the Post Office has felt it necessary to speak out publicly, and in a highly critical way, against the Prime Minister and the Government, because of the drift and uncertainty surrounding the Government's proposals for the future of the Post Office?
Is this not the clearest possible example of circumstances in which a debate is urgently required—in this instance, a debate on the future of a national institution?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's position in relation to the review of the Post Office, and the consideration that they are devoting to it—which, clearly, must be conducted very carefully—is well known. I do not propose to add anything further this afternoon.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I thank my right hon. Friend for providing, in considerable detail, the programme for the first week after our return in January? Would it not have been equally helpful to hon. Members if the subject of Thursday's debate had also been announced by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?
Mr. Newton: Yes, it would. It would also have been quite nice if someone had thanked me for my early warning of the dates of the Easter recess.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: The Leader of the House has announced a three-week Christmas recess. Will he spend at least one day of that break brushing up his knowledge of parliamentary procedure, of which he has shown a worrying lack of grasp in his answers today—especially in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who referred to the Prime Minister's poor performance at Prime Minister's Question Time?
The right hon. Gentleman said that, in all his time as Leader of the House, he had never heard the Leader of the Opposition answer a straight question. Will he try to understand that the Prime Minister's function is to answer the questions, whereas the function of the Leader of the Opposition is to ask them? May I make him fully aware that any Opposition Member would be delighted to swap places whenever he likes? We will answer the questions, and we will form the Government of the country, and we will answer those questions incredibly more effectively than the right hon. Gentleman does now.
Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is all over the place. I did not have in mind the role of the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's Question Time; I am well aware of the position in that regard, and I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I have sat through a good many debates during which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has been asked how he would pay for his spending programmes, and I have never heard an answer.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend consider making time available for a full debate on the methods by which the House makes the European Community accountable to Parliament, and to the Parliaments of the other member states? Is he aware that, when European Standing Committee B—of which I am a member—meets on 12 January, it will discuss a motion relating to the special rehabilitation support programme, and a document that will already have been agreed in the Council of Ministers? Any opinions that we express to the Minister therefore cannot be taken into account.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not satisfactory? Do we not need to review the way in which we scrutinise the huge quantity of legislation that flows out of the European Community, so that we can have the Europe of nation states that the Prime Minister wants, rather than being dragged into a federal system?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be well aware that, in recent years, substantial improvements have been made in the way in which such matters are conducted, in order to improve accountability. Obviously, I would not rule out further improvements if there are clear ways in which they can be made. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend might have welcomed the clear gains represented by the further progress made very recently at the Brussels Council in giving reality to the concept of subsidiarity.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made—either by the Secretary of State for Health, or by the Minister responsible for health in Scotland—regarding a letter that I have received from a junior Minister, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland?
According to that letter, incinerators in national health service hospitals—or trust hospitals—can now possibly be used to burn commercial or toxic waste. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a ministerial statement to clarify the matter, and to back up what the Minister said? I understand that he has now denied it to certain newspapers. I am concerned about that, because I have a letter in which he says clearly, in black and white, that those hospital incinerators can now burn toxic waste commercially.
Mr. Newton: I will bring that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that he will seek to reassure the hon. Gentleman in any way he can.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: First, may I thank my right hon. Friend profusely for giving us advance warning of the business that we will debate when we return?
Two weeks ago, when we were given notice of a debate prior to the meeting of the European Council, I told my right hon. Friend that I thought there would be a problem because not all the documentation was available, and that in any case there was a huge amount to study before the debate. As he will recall, last Thursday it turned out that some of the main documentation had not arrived until Wednesday afternoon—which gave us less than a day in which to study a 7 in pile of documentation.
I suspect that, if he looks at Hansard, my right hon. Friend will agree that the quality of the debate was very poor—with some exceptions. People had not had enough time to study the documents. Will my right hon. Friend take account of that, and look for some way in which we could have acquired that documentation earlier?
Mr. Newton: I shall not attempt to comment on every document. My hon. Friend will know, however, that when a debate is to take place near the date of a Council meeting, we depend to some extent on the arrival of the necessary documentation from the Commission, or from other appropriate bodies. He will also be well aware—it has been widely reported in the newspapers—that my right hon. Friends have made clear their own view on the late arrival of very important documents from the Commission for the Council itself.
Mr. John McAllion: Is the Leader of the House aware that, earlier this week, The Sun carried the story that thousands of jobs were available in California for British workers, involving the rebuilding of homes that had
1294
been destroyed in the fire? Is he aware that, misled by the story, some British workers actually went to California, only to discover that they were not allowed to work without the necessary permits—and that, in any case, the jobs did not exist?
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Minister to make a statement to the House setting the record straight, before any more British workers suffer as a result of the lies in The Sun?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the matter to the attention of, perhaps, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. On the other hand, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's complaint will be heard and noted by those responsible for the original story, who might then consider it appropriate for them to correct it.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In view of the procedures adopted by the Opposition to disrupt the Government's business, has my right hon. Friend had any talks with the deputy Leader of the Opposition about the Jopling proposals—or are those proposals even less likely to be implemented now?
Mr. Newton: I have had a number of exchanges of various kinds with the right hon. Lady. It has manifestly not been possible so far to make the progress that I would like. It is, perhaps, for the right hon. Lady to say whether she is prepared to engage in any further efforts; but the Opposition's current stance is that they are not talking to us at all.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Some highly disturbing information has been hidden in the Library rather than being published in Hansard. It shows that only 95 per cent. of those eligible to be included on the electoral register in England and Wales are currently registered. Moreover, that includes many people who should not be registered, as they died during the process of registration or have moved away.
When we return from the Christmas recess, should we not have a debate about the state of electoral registration in this country, so that we can discuss the development of a proper procedure to secure maximum registration? We are in danger of having not only a partial Parliament that hardly ever meets, but a partial electorate.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have at least one opportunity in the first week back to raise that point, because the Home Secretary is here for questions on Thursday 13 January.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 281.
[That this House notes that at Prime Minister's Questions on Tuesday 14th December the Prime Minister stated that there were over a thousand grant-maintained schools, Official Report, column 826, whereas the true number is 708; further notes that on the same day at education questions the Secretary of State for Education claimed that month after month including the last three months, the ratio for opting out was 8:2, whereas the correct ratio is 6:4 at a time when ballots have fallen by two-thirds; and calls on the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education to make a statement to the House correcting these serious errors of fact which might mislead honourable Members into repeating them inside and outside the House.]

1295
I have attempted to put right in a parliamentary publication factual inaccuracies made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education during Question Time on Tuesday. The Prime Minister mistook the estimate of grant-maintained schools as 1,000, when in reality it was 708, and the Secretary of State for Education could not tell the difference between a ratio of 8:2 and one of 6:4.
If the Leader of the House cannot bring them to the House to set the record straight, will he at least send the Prime Minister back to school so that he can get a better grasp of number, and send the Secretary of State for Education back to school so that he can learn to speak English in a much clearer fashion?
Mr. Newton: I suspect that the mathematical confusion may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind, since I understand that parents at well over 1,000 schools voted in favour of grant-maintained status, and applications from 840 of them have already been approved. Obviously, the exact proportion for and against varies from month to month, but taking the whole period since balloting began in 1988, the proportion has remained more or less constant at around eight out of 10.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, especially article 34, which calls on all states to take effective action to protect all children from sexual exploitation. In the light of that, I ask the Leader of the House to read the article in The Mail on Sunday, which highlighted the disturbing growth of child prostitution in Nottingham.
On the assumption that this is an all too sad reflection of what is going on in major cities up and down this country, can I ask the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on child prostitution in British cities, the inadequacies of current British law in terms of penalties against men who draw children into prostitution and the over-stretched nature of resources available to work with those children?
Mr. Newton: In one sence, I probably can promise the hon. Gentleman a debate, first, in fairly general terms and, no doubt subsequently if he wishes, in more specific terms. Of course, the first business in the first week back is the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, to which such matters would clearly be relevant.

Points of Order
5.3 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be most grateful if you could clarify a point of order which arose during business questions. You will have heard the Lord President asked about the handling of Prime Minister's questions, and you will have heard him say that he had never heard the Leader of the Opposition answer questions, as though that were in the context of Prime Minister's questions.
Will you place it on record and beyond doubt, first, that Question Time—whether for the Prime Minister or any other Minister—is to enable Government policy to be scrutinised by the House; and, secondly, that it would be out of order, and you would take a most serious view, if Labour Members sought to give answers instead of asking questions at that time?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, certainly with deference to you—I am not quite sure about the right hon. Lady—I made my position on that absolutely clear in response to a question asked from the Back Benches only a few moments ago.
Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance about Prime Minister's Questions today. While Prime Minister's Questions are normally noisy, it struck me that there was a concerted attempt by Opposition Members to drown the Prime Minister so that Tory Members could not hear him. I wonder whether you think that that is a breach of privilege.
Madam Speaker: Many hon. Members enjoy themselves during Question Time, and it is my wish that we have less noise during those exchanges.
Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
Madam Speaker: No, let me deal with the point of order raised by the right hon. Lady.
The way in which we conduct our parliamentary system is for the Executive to be accountable to Parliament and to answer questions, whether through parliamentary questions, statements or exchanges during debate. That is the whole basis on which our tradition has been built. The Executive are responsible to Parliament and the House for their conduct of policy.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate?
Dr. Godman: No, it is an entirely different matter, on which I seek your advice.
Yesterday, the statement concerning the joint declaration on Northern Ireland was aided by the placing of copies of the declaration in the Vote Office so that all hon. Members had access to the declaration to which the Prime Minister referred, understandably, in a very liberal way. It seems that a useful precedent was created. This is where I seek your guidance.
When Ministers make statements relating to documents, especially comprehensive ones, it would be useful if those

1297
documents could be placed in the Vote Office at an early time to enable hon. Members to read through them, as we were able to read the declaration yesterday.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. At present, the Procedure Committee is investigating this matter to see whether it can be dealt with as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Madam Speaker: As hon. Members are aware, this matter is raised with me at least once a week. For the moment, it is for the discretion of Ministers as to whether documents are available. I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is looking into the matter.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    NON-DOMESTIC RATING
    Mr. Secretary Gummer, supported by Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Mr. David Curry and Mr. Tony Baldry, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to non-domestic rating for the financial year beginning in 1994 and subsequent financial years; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER.
    Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Secretary Redwood and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the treatment, and certain services connected with the treatment, of offenders; to amend the law relating to bail; to amend the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts, including the law relating to evidence and the law relating to juries, and the law relating to the collection of fines; to amend the law relating to the publication of reports or pictures relating to proceedings in which children or young persons are concerned; to penalise intimidatory or harmful conduct towards witnesses, jurors and others; to confer new powers on the police to take samples from or search persons and to make further provision in relation to samples and fingerprints; to create new offences and make further provision in relation to persons unlawfully or without authorisation on land or causing a public nuisance by noise on land or otherwise affecting public order, including offences in relation to the recovery of possession of land from squatters and to make related amendments and repeals in certain enactments relating to gipsy caravan sites; to create further powers and offences for the prevention of terrorist activities; to amend the law relating to obscenity and pornography and the enforcement of the Video Recordings Act 1984; to make further provision in relation to prisons, the provision of prison services and employment in the prison service; to amend the law relating to the transfer of detainees; to increase certain penalties; to extend the powers of the Serious Fraud Office; to penalise the sale of tickets for designated football matches by unauthorised persons; to authorise the payment of grants for expenditure on measures for the prevention of crime or reduction of the fear of crime or for security at party conferences; and for purposes connected with those purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

    BANK OF ENGLAND (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen, supported by Sir Terence Higgins, Mr. Richard Spearing, Mr. John Watts, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir Thomas Arnold, Mr. Barry Legg, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Quentin Davies and Mr. Nigel Forman, presented a Bill to amend the Bank of England Act 1946 so as to remove the general power of the Treasury to give directions to the Governor of the Bank; to establish price stability as the primary objective of the Bank and to provide for policy targets for the carrying out of this objective; to enable the Treasury to override
    1298
    this primary objective in certain circumstances; to make provision as to the annual report of the Bank; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 January, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

    ENERGY CONSERVATION
    Mr. A. J. Beith, supported by Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Roy Beggs, Sir John Hannam, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Malcolm Wicks and Mr. Andrew Robathan, presented a Bill to make provision for the conducting of energy audits and the drawing up of energy conservation plans and priorities for residential properties in their areas by local authorities in the United Kingdom; to give the Secretary of State powers to set timetables for such plans and for works arising from them; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 February, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]
    TOBACCO ADVERTISING
    Mr. Kevin Barron, supported by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. Donald Dewar, Sir Peter Emery, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Roger Sims, The Reverend Martin Smyth, Sir David Steel, Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to make illegal the advertisement of tobacco and products containing tobacco other than at the point of sale; to make illegal the promotion by other means of tobacco and products containing tobacco; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 February, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
    CHIROPRACTORS
    Mr. David Lidington, supported by Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. Alan Simpson, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. Bill Cash, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Peter Butler, Alice Mahon, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Jean Corston and Mr. David Atkinson, presented a Bill to establish a body to be known as the General Chiropractic Council; to provide for the regulation of the chiropractic profession, including making provision as to the registration of chiropractors and as to their professional education and conduct; to make provision in connection with the development and promotion of the profession; to amend, and make provision in connection with the Osteopaths Act 1993; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 February, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
    ANTARCTIC
    Mr. Michael Jopling, supported by Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. David Howell, Sir David Steel, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman and Mrs. Chris Smith, presented a Bill to make new provision, in connection with the Antarctic Treaty signed at Washington on 1 December 1959; to make provision consequential on the Protocol on Environmental Protection to that Treaty done at Madrid on 4 October 1991; to make provision consequential on the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources drawn up at Canberra on 20 May 1980; to provide for the taking of criminal proceedings against, and the punishment of, British citizens and others in respect of certain acts and omissions occurring in that part of Antarctica that lies between 150 degrees West longitude and 90 degrees West longitude; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 February, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]
    ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (SPECIAL EVENTS)
    Mr. Peter Atkinson, supported by Mr. Sebastian Coe, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson, Mr. John Greenway and Mr. David Harris, presented a Bill to make provision, in connection with sporting or social events held on roads or entertainments so held, for the restriction or regulation of traffic on roads; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

    CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS)
    Dr. Roger Berry, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Sir John Hannam, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, The Reverend

    1299
    Martin Smyth, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Robert N. Wareing, presented a Bill to prohibit discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill. 16.]

    WATER (DOMESTIC DISCONNECTIONS)
    Mr. Stanley Orme, supported by Mr. Richard Burden., Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. John Denham, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Simon Hughes, Helen Jackson, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and Mr. Paul Tyler, presented a Bill to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 so as to remove the powers of water undertakers to disconnect residential premises in cases of non-payment of charges; to constrain the installation of pre-payment devices for the supply of water; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 February, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
    NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED)
    Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Ray Powell, presented a Bill to require local authorities to have regard for the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who have not attained the age of five years by the provision of nursery education as in section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 February, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
    PROTECTION OF DOGS
    Mr. Alan Williams, supported by Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Borden, Mr. Simon Hughes and Sir Terence Higgins, presented a Bill to make it an offence to cause or allow a dog to enter a subterranean refuge of any wild animal; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 February, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
    RACE RELATIONS (REMEDIES)
    Mr. Keith Vaz, supported by Ms Harriet Harman, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. David Trimble and Mr. Andrew Welsh, presented a Bill to remove the limit imposed by subsection (2) of section 56 of the Race Relations Act 1976 on the amount of compensation which may be awarded under that section and to make provision for interest in connection with sums so awarded; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 February, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
    PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
    Mr. Gerald Malone, supported by Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. John Denham, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson, Mr. Rod Richards, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to include among the matters subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration actions taken in the exercise of administrative functions by the administrative staff of certain tribunals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 February, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

    SALE AND SUPPLY OF GOODS
    Mr. David Clelland, supported by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Jim Dowd, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Martin Jones, Mr. Stephen Milligan, Mr. Richard Page and Mr. Alan W. Williams, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of goods; to make provision as to the terms to be implied in certain agreements for the transfer of property in or the hire of goods, in hire-purchase agreements and on the exchange of goods for trading stamps and as to the remedies for breach of the terms
    1300
    of such agreements; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 February, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

    RACIAL HATRED AND VIOLENCE
    Mr. Hartley Booth, supported by Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Keith Vaz, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. Spencer Batiste and Mr. Greville Janner, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to racial hatred; to strengthen the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988; to make new provisions to combat group defamation; to enable the courts to inmpose greater penalties in criminal cases involving racial hatred; and to make further provisions to amend the law relating to racial discrimination: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
    MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE AND POLLUTION)
    Mr. David Harris, supported by Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. David Porter, Sir Keith Speed, Mr. James Wallace and Joan Walley, presented a Bill to make further provision in relation to marine salvage and marine pollution and the discharge of functions of the Secretary of State in connection therewith; and for purposes connected with those purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 Januaray, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
    INSOLVENCY
    Mr. John Butterfill, supported by Mr. Nicholas Brown, Mr. Ian Malcolm Bruce, Sir Ralph Howell, Mr. Greville Janner, Dr. Ian Twinn, Mr. Richard Caborn and Mr. Philip Oppenheim, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to company insolvency and winding up, and the insolvency and bankruptcy of individuals, so far as it concerns the adjustment of certain transactions; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 January, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
    BUILDING CONVERSION AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
    Mr. John McAllion, supported by Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Sir David Knox, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. William McKelvey, presented a Bill to require the insulation against heat loss of dwelling units provided by the conversion of existing dwellings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 February, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
    SMALL BUSINESS
    Sir Michael Grylls, supported by Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. John Townend, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. Peter Thurnham, presented a Bill to place upon the Secretary of State a duty to promote the growth of small businesses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 February, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
    WOMEN INTO PARLIAMENT
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts with a view to increasing the number of women elected to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
    SAFETY IN SCHOOLS
    Mr. David Porter presented a Bill to require schools to make certain provisions in case of fire, accident and other emergency; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 February, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
Orders of the Day

  Social Security (Contributions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I must make it clear to the House that I have not selected the amendment.
  5.10 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will be aware that the Bill concerns the national insurance fund, which provides finance for the range of contributory benefits, the most notable of which is the retirement pension, but which also includes widows' benefits, sickness, maternity and unemployment benefits. Nearly half the total expenditure on social security is met from the national insurance fund—more than 80 per cent. is contributed by employers or employees and less than 20 per cent. is made up by Treasury grant.
  The thrust of the Bill is to increase employee contributions by 1 per cent. I recall that the great Irish-born statesman, Edmund Burke, who contribued so much to political thinking in general and particularly to thinking within the Conservative party, once said:
  "To tax and to please … is not given to men."
  If I cannot bring pleasure to the House, I hope that I will at least be able to persuade hon. Members that what we are proposing is both a rational and a prudent measure for the Government to take at this time.
  The other day the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) reminded me of my previous appearance, about a year ago, at the Dispatch Box in connection with a social security contributions Bill, when I referred to the concept of a contributory scheme being firmly embedded in the collective mind of our nation. That leads me to believe that most people will recognise that at a time when benefit expenditure is still expected to rise and contribution income is not keeping pace with cyclical pressures, an adjustment in contribution rates should be made. It is implicit in the contributory principle that contribution rates will fluctuate either up or down.
  It is worth reminding the House that the contribution increase proposed in the Bill is the first since 1983. The Government reduced employees' contributions in 1985 and again in 1989. Both changes were particularly targeted at helping lower-paid workers. After the 1 per cent. increase has been set, many people will still pay less from next April than they would have done under the flat 6·5 per cent. which applied under the Labour Government.
  The Government, of course, have no money of their own. They simply redistribute money collected through taxes and contributions in the way that Parliament prescribes. It is self-evident that no one would volunteer to pay extra contributions or taxes. Last year, we avoided an increase in national insurance contributions by introducing the facility for a Treasury grant to the fund to help sustain its balance.
  The House will be well aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has found it possible to announce the full uprating of all benefits for 1994–95 in line with inflation, as well as extra help with fuel costs for pensioners, widows and people receiving
  1302
  invalidity benefit. For the national insurance fund alone, that help will take expenditure to about £40 billion in 1994–95, an increase of about £1 billion on this year's expenditure.
  Income to the fund from national insurance contributions is not, however, keeping pace with expenditure. For instance, if contributions were kept at existing levels we would continue to spend between £4 billion and £5 billion more on benefits than our net contribution receipts. As the House will be aware, the Social Security Act 1993 introduced the facility for a grant from the Treasury to the national insurance fund. The grant will continue to be an intrinsic part of our strategy for balancing that fund, but we nevertheless consider it right that, in the medium term, contributors should be expected to bear a somewhat greater proportion of the cost of benefits rather than taxpayers generally being expected to make up all the deficit.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Is it his Department's intention to publish an explanatory leaflet about the details of the increases which would be available to anyone who is affected by the Bill? If so, will he seek to explain to all employees the obligations of the Government towards them in terms of the payment of such benefits?
  Mr. Scott: I will ensure that the usual information on the workings of the national insurance fund and the contributions paid by employees and employers is made available. When we return to the House after the Christmas recess, there will be an opportunity for the House, provided that we complete proceedings on the Bill today, as we must, to consider the regulations that will cover the detail of the Bill. That would be an appropriate time for us to consider the advice that we will give to employers and employees for the arrangements that will exist in the new financial year.
  The detail of the Bill deals with a single substantive measure—the 1 per cent. increase in employees' national insurance contributions. I shall mention two subsidiary items later.
  The proposed increase in contributions has been public for a considerable time, having been announced in the March Budget by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). Earlier this week, when the House discussed the Bill's timetable, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that, since then, at least 15 days had been available for discussion of the proposal.
  The increase in employees' national insurance contributions requires social security legislation separate from the Finance Bill, because it is not a taxation measure, but a national insurance fund income measure under the care and management of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The other detailed aspects of the annual contributions rerating, which my right hon. Friend announced on the day of the Budget, will be dealt with, as I said a few moments ago, in the usual regulations and the affirmative order at a later date. I can confirm—in response to a point raised yesterday—that that order will, as is statutorily provided for, be accompanied by the customary report of the Government Actuary.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether there will be

  1303
  an opportunity to discuss the uprating statement, as in the past? Do the new Budget procedures preclude the ability to have a proper debate in the House on the details of the uprating statement?
  Mr. Scott: There was ample opportunity for hon. Members to respond when my right hon. Friend made the uprating statement. As we have moved to a unified Budget, immediately followed by an uprating statement and then by legislation giving effect, where necessary, to any of the announcements, including the uprating statement, I do not believe that there is any shortage of opportunity in the House to discuss the impact of measures.
  I am aware that, during the debate on the timetable of the Bill, hon. Members wondered whether the general arrangements of the House needed to be looked at in the light of the arrangements for the unified Budget. That is not a matter for me to settle, but I know that those who are responsible for the business of the House are giving some thought to it. That is the greatest comfort that I can give the hon. Gentleman at the moment.
  I should emphasise that the increase applies only to the main rate of contributions—earnings over £57 a week—and does not apply to the lower rate of contributions; so lower-paid workers will pay proportionately less at the new, higher rate and the greatest increases will be for those on higher levels of pay at or near the upper limit. The increase across the range of earnings, on which the state-earnings related pension scheme accrues, maintains the contributory principle of the scheme as a whole. The 1 per cent. increase will assist the national insurance fund to the tune of £1·9 billion in the first year.
  We are aiming—subject, of course, to parliamentary progress—to achieve Royal Assent by the end of January or early February, to allow time for details in the separate re-rating order to follow on and to ensure that employers can plan on the revised rates being firm when they receive the new contribution rates, which will be mailed out in February.
  I shall touch on two subsidiary measures in the Bill. Last night, there was, if I may use the vernacular term, a bit of a son and dance about the national health service provisions in the measures that we are considering. It was built up, no doubt for reasons best known to those in charge of the response to business on the Opposition Benches, with a good performance by the Labour Members who sit below the Gangway. The provision is a minor corrective measure, and I am sure that when it is explained it will be supported on both sides of the House.
  We currently allocate about 10 per cent. of all contribution income to the health service under a principle dating back to the inception of the contributory scheme as we know it. However, we have uncovered a minor ambiguity in the legislation that split employees' contributions in 1989 into an initial rate of 2 per cent. and a main rate of 9 per cent. which, as the House will be aware, is to be increased to 10 per cent. I am entirely clear that it was always intended that the NHS allocation should, from 1989 onwards, be paid out of the main rate and not out of the lower 2 per cent. rate, because that would have left only about half the 2 per cent. contribution rate to go into the national insurance fund.
  As drafted, the legislation certainly excludes calculating the allocation on the 2 per cent. rate and it could be interpreted as excluding an allocation to the NHS on variants of the main 9 per cent. rate—for example, where
  1304
  employees are contracted out of SERPS and a rebated main contribution rate is paid. That was never the intention and the allocation has been paid all along to the NHS from all contributions from employees above the initial 2 per cent. rate. That simple addition to the Bill is a small amendment to ensure that legislation and time-honoured policy and practice properly coincide.
  The third provision of the Bill is a simple clarifying amendment, which involves no change in policy. It will not change in any way the assessment for class 4 contributions and no one will be any worse off. It aims to put beyond doubt the existing policy that payments made to approved personal pension schemes by the self-employed are not allowable as relief in the computation of profits on which class 4 contributions are charged. It is in line with the basic principle that only genuine business expenses, not personal expenses, are allowed.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear on a number of occasions that the Government are committed to the welfare state, but to one which will not outstrip the nation's ability to pay for it in the longer term. However, I believe that the levels of expenditure to which we are committed for the immediate future require a readjustment of the balance of expenditure met by the taxpayer and the contributor. The increase in contributions is modest in terms of our past record, which is that we have twice reduced contributions and saved most people about £3 a week. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I thank the Minister for his courteous explanation of the Bill. I must confess that he reminded me that he is not a man given to raising the temperature. I suspect that that is why he has been put up to speak on this occasion. I especially appreciate the way in which he referred with slight distaste to the uncovering of a minor ambiguity—as if he were the proprietor of a bungalow and had found a worm on his lawn. I assure him that I do not intend to pursue that matter and follow the ingenuity of my colleagues that night.
  I am more interested in what the Minister presented as an almost technical adjustment—in the increase in the basic national insurance contributions for employees. It is a short and simple Bill, which is to some extent brutal. Undoubtedly, it will be unpopular and will have unpleasant consequences. It is full of somewhat sinister possibilities for future policy.
  I am genuinely a little surprised that the Secretary of State has decided to sit this debate out, although I understand that he is here and available to comment. However, I regard the Bill as an important measure; it is part of the central budgetary strategy of the Government and will raise a great deal of money. I do not want to make a war dance, but it is remarkable that the Secretary of State does not wish to explain the measure to the House himself and put it in the wider context—the Secretary of State is a great man for his wider context.
  The Government strategy is built on taxes, which have increased over recent times, are increasing and, if the Chancellor has his way, will go on increasing dramatically. I would never criticise the Chancellor's commitment to the policy that he has chosen—to set about raising taxes with vim, vigour and a fair degree of imagination. We know from his evidence about which there has been a good deal of talk already, that the Chancellor told the Treasury Select

  1305
  Committee yesterday that there was no dispute and that it was common ground that what would be raised in the coming financial year would be the equivalent of 7p on the standard rate of income tax.
  That is a pretty staggering figure for Conservative Members of Parliament—especially for those who have unusually long memories and can remember what they said during the general election campaign. The fact that the Chancellor has confirmed that his proposals will add the equivalent of £9 or £10 to the bills of an average family and that in the following year that £9 or £10 will escalate to £16 is, to put it charitably, food for thought among Conservative Members of Parliament and voters.
  We are considering £24 billion over three years—a massive hike in taxation and one of the greatest in modern times. In the grand design, which was hidden with remarkable tenacity during debates on the general election, the Social Security (Contributions) Bill has a key and rather dishonourable role.
  The Minister was careful to make a technical distinction about the adjustment in the contribution rate and he said that it was not a matter of taxation. I understand why he wants to clutch to that fig leaf—fig leaves were mentioned in the debate last night and I am glad to adopt that metaphor. It is a rise in taxation—a substantial rise—which affects the vast majority of the working population. I quote in evidence of the fact that it is taxation a speech made on 7 October 1993—to which I am sure the Minister listened —at the Conservative party conference by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
  "Most of Norman Lamont's tax increases will come from higher National Insurance Contributions, cuts in income tax allowances and a clampdown on tax avoidance".
  We know that Ministers now rather belittle the idea of clamping down on tax loopholes and tax avoidance. The point I stress is that the Chancellor straightforwardly said that his predecessor's tax increases would come mainly from three areas, and the one area that led the list was higher national insurance contributions.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an expert on increasing taxation. Perhaps during his speech he will refer to Labour's policies and proposals for taxation and national insurance. Does Labour still have the policy of adding 10p to the top rate of tax, whatever that would be, and of removing the ceiling from those on the top level of national insurance? For many workers earning modest sums, the increase in income tax would be 20 per cent.
  Mr. Dewar: I am always glad when the hon. Gentleman comes seeking the truth, although I am a little puzzled by his statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor, has outlined a specific list of proposals on many occasions, usually with a certain air of embarrassment because he is greeted with shouts of "Boring!" from hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). It is not a case of the hon. Gentleman not knowing; it is a case of his not wanting to listen or to learn.
  The Chancellor spoke at the conference about loopholes and about tax avoidance. A list of specific loopholes, including corporation tax loopholes, executive share options, advance corporation tax and scrip dividends, has been put on the table by my hon. Friend the shadow
  1306
  Chancellor. It would greatly improve the knowledge of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—I have no doubt that he would enjoy the task—to read some of my hon. Friend's speeches.
  There is a great deal of concern about the shadow Budget and about national insurance contributions—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) appears to be about to raise the matter. It fills two whole pages of the defensive briefing which was prepared for this debate by Conservative central office. The briefing contains a little calculation of the impact of Labour's proposals on an especially sensitive group of voters—those who earn just over £22,000. We were told that they would be especially victimised and that it was unthinkable that the shadow Chancellor could impose such a burden. We have the figure here. It is said that someone who earns £22,000 would have to pay £2·98 more a week under Labour's proposals. That is terrible, unthinkable and cause for outrage.
  I do not know whether, in his deep researches into the matter, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh has taken the trouble to look at the briefing on the Bill prepared by the Library. If he takes that trouble, he will see someone earning £430 a week will pay far higher national insurance contributions than those proposed by the Labour party before the general election. I am very puzzled. I took the Conservatives' outrage and concern about the impact of those proposals as wholly genuine.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not dispute the arithmetic of the House of Commons Library. The figure will not be £2·98, as suggested in the shadow Budget and as quoted by Conservative central office. People in the category I have mentioned will face an increase of £4·56 a week. As there was outrage at the proposition produced before the general election, I confidently look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman in my Lobby tonight. He must now be experiencing the most appalling difficulties of conscience about how he can support an imposition on those people which is far larger than any previously proposed.
  Although the Secretary of State for Social Security is technically in charge of the Bill, it is, of course, part of the central Budget strategy, with its proposal of the equivalent of 7p on the standard rate. It was interesting that the Chancellor told the Treasury Select Committee yesterday that although all that was true, he was not raising money by putting 7p on the standard rate of income tax because there were better ways in which to do it. He said:
  "I think it's been raised in a much more desirable fashion myself."
  I suppose that if he did not think that, no one would think that, so we should be grateful for his remark.
  In the cheerful and chattering Sun, which always has helpful information on these matters, we get further assistance. The article says:
  "Treasury experts"—
  fancy that: The Sun has been talking to Treasury experts—
  "believe increased income tax discourages hard workers while VAT-style rises make people feel better off."
  I confess that as I move round my constituency and talk to people who are worried about increases in VAT, about national insurance contributions and other indirect taxation rises, they express a wide variety of sometimes irritated opinion on the matter. I have not yet come across anyone who has said, "I feel better off as a result of these increases

  1307
  in taxation." If The Sun has that odd animal in captivity, Treasury expert or not, it would be helpful for that person to be produced for inspection and analysis.
  The Chancellor is reported in the Daily Mail as saying, when describing how he went for the better methods of raising the money:
  "I looked for those increases which would be most accepted and supported by the public."
  We know now that the Chancellor had a pick-and-mix approach to the matter. What he picked and what he mixed were his proposals on mortgage interest relief at source, VAT on domestic fuel, holiday tax, car insurance tax and home insurance tax. He homologated—I accept that he was not the parent of this—the national insurance increase which had been put on the table by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).
  No one in his right mind believes that the taxes will be popular. I believe that many Conservative Members hoped that they would not be noticed. They hoped that they could be smuggled through without any great public concern. That may be one reason why the Prime Minister used to say—the best known occasion was 28 January 1992—that the Government had no plans to raise the level of national insurance contributions. I confess that when I hear the Prime Minister or any of his senior Ministers saying that he has no plans, I run for cover. That is increasingly the public's attitude to these events.
  The chairman of the Conservative party at the time of the election, when ruling out an increase in national insurance contributions, said—it was a nice phrase—that it would be a "stealth tax". "Stealth" is not a word that I associate easily with the knockabout style of the Chancellor. I do not regard him as a stealthy figure; he falls into the category of the cheerful spiv in his general approach to these matters.
  The stealth factor was a military metaphor. We all know that the Conservative party is much given to military metaphors. The idea was that the Conservatives would smuggle in the increase at low level and undetected. My message to the Minister is that there is nae chance. The increase will be very much resented, and even when broken promises have been very much devalued by the frequency with which they have occurred, many people will see it as offensive.
  I shall explain why, apart from broken promises, we believe that the Chancellor made an unfortunate choice when he decided to lay aside any direct taxation and to go for this form of indirect taxation. The Minister will know that the increase bites further down the income scale than income tax does. There are about 500,000 people who do not pay any form of income tax, but who pay national insurance contributions. Let us consider a shop assistant earning £6,000 a year. That person will pay another 38p a week—not a lot—as a result of the increase in national insurance contributions. If there had been an increase in direct taxation, that person, probably although not necessarily a lady, would have paid nothing because she would have been above the tax threshold.
  I made the point about a different situation, where the increase will hit hard those earning just above £22,000, £23,000 or £24,000. I understand from my Conservative aquaintances that they are archetypal election fodder for the Conservative party. That is a strong contender for the most shameless broken promise of this Parliament, but I accept that some of my hon. Friends may disagree, because
  1308
  it is such a formidable field. The one thing on which we can all agree is that this is part of a Budget and it illustrates the principle that we are being asked to pay more and get less.
  I have read Conservative material that suggested that national insurance contributions should go up. I pay tribute to the Minister, who did not try to argue that, although it has been argued by some of his colleagues, who say that it should go up because of the increase in benefits. In a sense that is true. Benefit costs have risen because we are funding unemployment and the recovery that has never come. It was a recovery that so excited the Chief Secretary at the time of the election that he failed to notice that we were heading for a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement, as he rather disingenuously explained in a recent debate.
  We must look at the balancing account—what people will get in return for the increase in national insurance contributions. It is particularly relevant, because if—it is a bit of an "if"—the Minister is right that it is not just general taxation, it would not be unreasonable to assume that there would be some sort of balancing improvement in benefit provision. The tragedy is that, over the years, many of the entitlements that arise from national insurance contributions have deteriorated.
  Dr. Godman: Surely it is not just a question of deterioration in those benefits. There is a serious case, is there not? The Department is refusing to honour obligations to persons who have legitimate claims for contributory pensions. The Minister is still refusing to accede to a decision taken by a commissioner 18 months ago that women aged between 60 and 65 should be paid invalidity benefit. The Department is still refusing to honour that decision, which was taken in April 1992. Surely that is dishonourable.
  Mr. Dewar: I admire—I use the word in no loose sense—the tenacity with which my hon. Friend has pursued that matter. He was temporarily out of the Chamber yesterday when the shadow of Mrs. Rose Graham fell across our proceedings. I agree that the way in which these matters get bogged down in litigation is alarming. As I understand it, there is now a suggestion that the Court of Appeal should remit the case to the European courts. We do not know when we will get a specific result.
  Dr. Godman: I am sorry that I was absent yesterday when Mrs. Rose Graham was mentioned. In the case of a constituent of mine, I have made a formal complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman, accusing Ministers and their officials of maladministration in the matter.
  Mr. Dewar: I know that my hon. Friend is knocking tirelessly on every door, and I endorse—
  Dr. Godman: It is the Court of Session next.
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend and I look forward with interest to the unfolding drama.
  I endorse my hon. Friend's general point. There are problems about obligations and worries about the way in which they are being eroded and disregarded.
  I shall now use as an example the right to unemployment benefit, which is directly linked to national insurance contributions. It is interesting. In 1980—there will be people here with more detailed knowledge than myself—the abatement of unemployment benefit against occupational pension income was introduced. In 1989, that

  1309
  abatement was applied at the age of 55 rather than at 60. In 1984, the child dependency additions were abolished. In 1992, the earnings-related supplement was abolished. During those years, benefits were taxed.
  A raft of new regulations—I do not think that anyone would quarrel with me about the matter—was specifically designed to disqualify and obstruct those trying to claim the benefit. The Government have a history of removing entitlements, weakening their obligations under the contract that is implicit in the national insurance scheme and trying to ensure that people did not draw unemployment benefit as they once would have done.
  In his famous Mais lecture—famous because it is now read by many of my colleagues—the Secretary of State argued that one of the reasons for success in job creation in the United States—I hope that I do not misinterpret or misrepresent him—was that people had far less generous unemployment cover there. Presumably one might say that that physically and metaphorically cracked the whip behind the unemployed and persuaded them back to work. The implication clearly spelt out by the Secretary of State was that, if we could further weaken unemployment cover, we might get the same reaction.
  It should not come as a surprise that, when we look at that long list of weakening of the unemployment benefit system, we now see a further move in that direction with the jobseeker's allowance. I find it illogical, ironical and slightly offensive, in view of the Government's record, that one of the reasons given for the job seeker's allowance is that so many unemployed people—I think that 70 per cent. was mentioned—are not getting unemployment benefit that it might as well be virtually abolished.
  Of course a large number of people are not getting unemployment benefit when they are not working. In large part, that is because of the rule changes for which the Ministers who advance that argument have been responsible. It is a piece of sophistry to conduct the argument on that basis.
  Whoever winds up the debate may wish to deal with this—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who seems to be the winder-up-in-chief. The job seeker's allowance is a cutting of an automatic entitlement in one's own right, on the basis of the contributions paid, to support when unemployed for between six and 12 months. My understanding from a written answer that came through the House a few weeks ago, is that if that was applied to unemployment benefit now, 240,000 people would no longer be entitled. That seems to be a real example of the "pay more, get less" theme, which is a mark of the Administration, the Bill and the Budget.
  When the Minister winds up, I would like him to say a word or two about that. We know that the Chancellor said that the whole point of the job seeker's allowance was to align rates and rules between income support and the job seeker's allowance when it came to replace unemployment benefit. Another point that was made, and I understand it, was that one is a contributory benefit and the other is non-contributory.
  Therefore, the contributory benefit would be uprated on the retail prices index, and the other on the Rossi index. If we are to have harmonisation on that point, it would be useful to know at this stage, as we prepare for the debates
  1310
  later, whether the new job seeker's allowance will be uprated on Rossi or on the RPI. It is a little like the problem that Members have when their constituency is halved by the Boundary Commissioners. Which way will they go? When it comes to the uprating, which way will the Secretary of State go?
  I shall ask the Minister two specific questions. There will be wide interest in the response. I have heard—the Minister will be listening to me on this—rumours that, under the cover of introducing the job seeker's allowance, additional payments for adult dependants will be abolished. As the Minister knows, that is a feature of the contributory rights built up at the moment and honoured in the unemployment benefit scheme. Can he offer reassurance—or, if it is wrong, can he deny it—that the additional payments for adult dependants, at £27·55 a week at present, are not going to disappear and be quietly dropped overboard, thus representing a significant cut in benefit under the repackaging that the job seeker's allowance represents?
  I am anxious, because I missed it—I make no apology for that—about something that the Secretary of State said in his uprating statement. He spoke of a personal rate in the first six months of the job seeker's allowance—the period of benefit as of right. I am beginning to suspect that the word "personal" was carefully chosen and that may give support to those who fear that the additional payment for adult dependants will go.
  Secondly, when we align the rates and the structures, what will happen to those aged between 18 and 24? They are dealt with in a different way under income support than they are under unemployment benefit. Under the latter, there is a flat rate throughout the age range. There is no difference between the young person who is unemployed and the older one. However, under income support there is a smaller payment for those under 25. In April 1994, someone who is 24 and on unemployment benefit will get £44·45 a week, but someone who is 24 and on income support will get £36·15—a substantial difference of £9·30.
  I fear that talk about aligning the rates means that people who have built up a right and an entitlement to the new job seeker's allowance will get a lower rate because they are under 25, as they would have done under income support, and will therefore be discriminated against and victimised. That is a specific question which the Minister should be able to answer easily. I shall press him to answer it when he replies.
  I fear that there will be another substantial reduction in entitlement at the same time as the Government are raising contributions. It will again be pay more and get less, again robbing Peter, or almost anybody else, to pay Kenneth. The House should not nod through a Bill that does that, while assuming that there are no concerns.
  I know that it is always irritating—I have always found it irritating when it happens to me—to have something one has said quoted at one. The Minister will remember that, in the social security debate earlier in the year, he said:
  "I do not think that my right hon. Friend has been sufficiently congratulated on the successful outcome that he has achieved—a very full uprating of benefit across the board, and no increase in national insurance contributions. I consider that a remarkable achievement."—[0fficial Report, 10 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 1082.]
  He cannot say that now. I hope—perhaps I give him credit to which he is not due—that he will continue to fight the

  1311
  good fight against the Secretary of State and the Treasury, trying to preserve a decent level of return for entitlement built up through the payment of contributions.
  I must draw to a conclusion, but many points need still to be explored.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he confirm that the 200,000 people whom he said would lose as a result of the change in unemployment benfit and the reduction in entitlement as a result of the six months' change, will also disappear into a black hole in the unemployment statistics?
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend is right. I shall probably have little difficulty in persuading her that that is not an accident. It is not just a chance. I am sure that that factor occurred to Ministers as a useful by-product of the whole exercise.
  Mr. Michael Bates: The hon. Gentleman has asked some specific questions. I have one for him to answer. If there were to be a future Labour Government, would they restore unemployment benefit to a universal nature and over 12 months?
  Mr. Dewar: We shall have to wait and see what is proposed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] We shall also have to see what our inheritance is. One of the features of the Government is that, every time someone invites us to put right a particular outrage, we discover that there are another six growing alongside it, and it becomes difficult to give pledges.
  Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that, unlike Ministers, we are concerned about preserving the proper balance between those who are in difficulty, through unemployment, sickness or disability, and those who are not. We are concerned about the way in which the balance is being tilted, with entitlements being weakened. That will be the basis from which we shall approach the problems.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in those matters and I am sure that we shall have his support when the time comes. I do not know enough about his majority to know whether he will be here on the Opposition Benches to support us in Parliament, but I feel confident that, even in the community, he will be explaining the difficulties that we shall have to face and justifying our actions.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman came into my life for the first time yesterday. He was hyperactive. We had several speeches and a petition from him. I had a letter about him from the Secretary of State at lunchtime. I do not want to encourage him overmuch, but I gather—he tells me so—that he is the bearer of good news about the social fund. I hope that that will prove to be not a minor cosmetic change, but something substantial, dealing with the problems of the social fund.
  When I spoke in the Budget debate, I drew attention to what seemed like difficult times in the Treasury. There is always a changing scene and at one point it seemed as though the Chancellor had cracked the whip and exercised his authority. I do not intend to go through it in great detail, but he gave an on-the-record briefing, much reported in the press, in which he made it clear that the back-to-basics move was nonsense, because any attempt to use the social
  1312
  security system to engineer social change, or to restrict or shape it, was not a practical proposition. He went on to make some trenchant comments about those misguided enough to suggest that the middle-income group should be invited to contract out of the basic state pension.
  The Secretary of State took his cue—I congratulate him on that—and spoke about it in a "Walden" interview which I particularly enjoyed. I am afraid that I missed it visually, but I read the transcript afterwards. The Secretary of State made it clear that only over his dead body would anybody be contracted out of the basic state pension. As I said the other day, he is now the "never, not ever, man". We should be grateful for that.
  I do not want to rehearse all that and perhaps intrude upon private grief, but I am interested—they are relevant to the debate—in certain events since then. Although the Secretary of State for Social Security has fallen into line with the Chancellor, rather interestingly it turns out that the Chief Secretary is made of sterner stuff and has not caved in. In a key part of his briefing, the Chancellor said:
  "I do not see that"—
  the basic state pension—
  "as being opted out or left as a vestigal remnant for those who cannot provide for themselves."
  Only a few days later, as hon. Members will know, the Chief Secretary appeared on "Westminster Live" and said:
  "My worry about the state pension"—
  I thought the word "worry" a little surprising, but perhaps I should welcome small mercies—
  "is that it is going to be worth a nugatory amount in the coming century."
  I am not suggesting that pensioners all over the country, as they gather around the yuletide log and over Christmas dinner, are anxiously discussing whether a pension can be "nugatory" without being "vestigial", but that is a matter of considerable importance. My fear is that the resistance that may still exist in the Department of Social Security, and that is clearly alive and all too well in the Treasury, may win the day.
  What may happen is that the Chancellor will merely deny what is happening, but national insurance contributions will increase in the way that we are invited to authorise in the Bill. As I have illustrated fairly on unemployment benefit, there will also be a substantial rundown continuum in the worth of the basic state pension as against average earnings, so that it becomes, in that pretentious but significant word, "nugatory" by the time that we reach the next century.
  When I was young, the next century seemed aeons of time away. It is now less than a decade away. Perhaps I shall even live to see it and to have that nugatory pension. Therefore, I take a personal interest in the matter. I shall watch for increasing public signs of how the debate progresses. Its significance is that it is again a clear sign of a danger of the wrong balance—tilting against entitlements, which many people imagined that they were building up as they made their contributions. It is further evidence of pay more, get less.
  Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: As I am coming to what I think the Secretary of State rather hopefully calls his "peroration" in his printed speeches, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
  Mr. Heald: How would the hon. Gentleman make up the deficit in the national insurance fund?
  Mr. Dewar: That is a good and interesting question. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, some time in the late 1980s, it was not the present Secretary of State for Social Security but some other optimist who announced that the national insurance fund was balanced and removed the statutory opportunity of making up a deficit. In 1992, the Government found themselves 20 per cent. short of the sum that they needed to meet their current obligations and had to come to the House.
  We were helpful. We did not make much of it. We passed a Bill in one day because we were anxious to repair the damage and get them out of that particular embarrassment—not their embarrassment, which did not matter to me, but the embarrassment of not being able to pay people's benefits. As a result, there will be a shortage of up to 20 per cent.—it is likely to settle at about 17 per cent. Perhaps the Minister could say a word about how the figure may be influenced. Now, there is room for a Treasury subvention. That will have to happen, and I am. sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect it.
  It might be helpful if we had a Government with ambitions to see a growth rate rather above the 1·6 to 1·7 per cent. annual rate of the past decade, which has left us struggling behind many other European countries. As the Social Security Advisory Committee said in a report published yesterday, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have taken the trouble to read, much of the Government's talk about the inability to fund the present level of social security is unjustified and can be maintained only if one takes an extremely gloomy view of our economic prospects. That is a useful corrective and is perhaps also part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend may recall that the Treasury supplement was 18 per cent. in 1979 and continued at that level for many years. In the late 1980s, the Government decided that they would not pay it, because the national insurance fund was so high. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation today is the reverse of the days when David Lloyd George said that the national insurance scheme would involve paying in fourpence to get out ninepence? Now, we pay in ninepence and get out fourpence.
  Mr. Dewar: That neatly puts the argument. [Interruption.] Let me make a sympathetic suggestion to the Minister. To be fair, the problems of the national insurance fund are partly due to economic failure, which has reduced income from national insurance contributions.
  I have taken up sufficient time. The Minister of State is an extremely well-intentioned man. He has never been accused of reaching for the glittering prizes. Whether he did or not, I know not, but he certainly did not grasp them. He has had an honourable career in Northern Ireland and at the Department of Social Security. It is rather sad to find him now reduced to the role of a tax collector and general demolisher of entitlements that flow from contributory benefits.
  I recognise the Government's difficulty—I would be silly if I did not. If one needs to borrow £1 billion a week merely to balance the books, clearly that cannot be entirely shrugged off. I suspect that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in private industry, he would go bust in a big way—with style. That is my worry. I only hope that he does not take quite the same risks in future years.
  1314
  The PSBR suggests that we have had some profligacy and certainly some incompetence. The one certainty is that people will have to pay dearly: £10 in the coming year or £9—I will not split hairs over that—and £16 the following year. That is an extraordinary contrast to the promises, pledges and, indeed, boasts of early 1992 when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were on the hustings. Theirs has been a crashing fall. The trouble with politics is that once the election is over, one can lose all dignity and all claim to respect, yet survive. That is one of the ironies of British politics. The worse the Government and the more bedraggled their record, the less likely they are to be forced to go to the country. As unemployment stares Back Benchers in the face, they tend to rally to the colours.
  I must content myself by saying that the measure is misconceived. It represents part of a trend to undermine the understanding, and some would say the contract, between Government and the governed which guarantees help in times of need—adequate help, as of right. The Government are embarked on a destructive course and there will be great anxiety and anger in the years ahead.
  The Bill is dishonourable, not because it raises revenue—all Governments have to raise revenue and it would be silly to argue against that—but because it is part of a dishonourable package. The Government are asking people to pay more at a time when they are stripping down and undermining what people get in return. We will have none of it—and we will vote accordingly tonight.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has had a lot of fun with Conservative party documents stolen from the Conservative research department. He has had fun, too, talking about the Government's taxation record.
  The hon. Gentleman was selective in his quotes from the document. For example, he did not mention that, according to page 10, in the past three months alone the Labour party has suggested a tourism tax, a pollution tax, a payroll tax, a health tax, a road pricing tax and, heaven forbid—I cannot believe this, having heard the hon. Gentleman's talk—even an entertainment tax, as well as an education tax and a windfall tax. Yet he dares to suggest that we are the party of taxation.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dewar: I must confess that I read that page with great interest and some amusement. To say that those allegations are on thin ground and have poor foundations would be an understatement. Even if the hon. Gentleman takes them at face value, does he find them entirely ludicrous when he is about to go into the Lobby in favour of a car insurance tax, a home insurance tax, a travel tax, VAT on domestic fuel and an increase in national insurance contributions? Over the next three years we are to see the biggest tax increase that we have ever seen in the history of this country.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I remind the

  1315
  House that we are considering a narrow Bill on Second Reading and that these exchanges could properly have taken place during the Budget proceedings.
  Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your advice. Obviously, I would have given a devastating reply.
  To return to the narrow subject of social security contributions, hon. Members will be aware that the main provision of the Bill is contained in clause 1. Its effect is to increase the rate by 1 per cent., from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent., for national insurance contributions paid by employees on earnings between the lower and the upper earnings limits. The Bill also clarifies existing national insurance contribution policy in two important areas. The first concerns how part of the national insurance fund is allocated to health service funds and the second reaffirms that self-employed people have to pay class 4 national insurance contributions on payments to personal pensions, an important element which has not been taken up so far.
  There are two other important measures that do not require primary legislation: first, an increase in contributions for self-employed people on their class 4 contributions and, secondly, reductions in contributions payed by employers. The overall effect of the legislation is to simplify the administration of the fund and to make significant changes to the way in which it operates.
  The most contentious aspect of the Bill is the increase in national insurance contributions, and I shall deal with that first as it has clearly not been addressed by Opposition Members. The Government, like those in all other western countries, where the old live longer and all are provided with state health care, face a huge and ever-increasing bill for social security expenditure. It now tops £70 billion. The trends behind that increase have continued unabated for decades and I think that that is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There has been an enormous increase in the costs of health care. The growth in the number of single parents and the increase in the number of working women, who rightly expect a pension on retirement, have also contributed to the huge and ever-increasing bill.
  We are concerned today with trends in expenditure on contributory benefits alone, and here the story is much the same. Expenditure on those benefits rose by almost £10 billion in the four years to 1992–93 and it is expected to rise further still. Even as the world faces a wintry economic climate, and Germany and Japan continue their nose dive into recession, the Government—
  Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am delighted to give way to my honourable sparring partner.
  Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman, who is clearly, from his authoritative words tonight, an expert on social security, talked about the increased expenditure on national insurance. Will he give us the percentage figure by which employees' national insurance contributions have increased since 1979?
  Mr. Fabricant: Anyone know? [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says 53 per cent.
  As Germany and Japan have continued their nose-dive into recession, the Government have not flinched from their commitment to the needy and most vulnerable members of society. Retirement pensions alone rose by
  1316
  £2·5 billion during the past four years, and now social security benefits have been uprated across the board. Our social security budget will rise by some £11 billion during the next couple of years, which I know will interest the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). This is a Government who recognise their responsibilities and, unlike the Opposition—whose talk is cheap—we will deliver.
  Moreover, in 1985 and 1989, Government reform of national insurance saved the vast majority of employees about £3 a week. At the previous election, Labour proposed that the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions should be abolished. What a disincentive to work. What a disincentive to the most able in our society. That measure would have increased by 9 per cent. the tax paid by everyone earning more than about £20,000. Before Opposition Members laugh, may I say that £20,000 is not that much more than the average working wage now.
  With more people than ever before claiming pensions, invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit, the national insurance fund has moved from surplus to deficit. Expenditure is outstripping income. The principle behind the scheme is that of pay-as-you-go, with this year's expenditure being funded by this year's taxes. The insurance contribution of today is not for the pension of tomorrow.
  The Treasury grant that was introduced this year was a sensible measure in these difficult economic times when stimulating the economy has been of overriding importance, but it can be only an interim measure. The Treasury grant is payed for by the general body of taxpayers. Some of those, such as pensioners, have already made a full contribution towards the national insurance fund. With expenditure rising and the national insurance fund running into deficit, the fund must be topped up by increased contributions.
  At this juncture, I want to give a warm welcome to a Government omission. The Government have resisted any temptation to increase national insurance contributions by employers. That makes sound sense. Alone among those in Europe, our economy is recovering, but the recovery is fragile and any measures that would hit employers could jeopardise the rebirth of our nation's wealth.
  Mr. Dewar: What about statutory sick pay?
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall come to the subject of statutory sick pay shortly.
  Our employers could ill afford the extra costs that raised national insurance contributions would represent. Our wealth creators have been, and must be, protected to such an extent that a reduction in employers' contributions has recently been announced. The standard rate of contribution is to fall from 10·4 to 10·2 per cent. Equally significant is the reduced rate for employers of lower-paid workers—a reduction of 1 per cent.
  I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, employers will have to bear the extra costs of funding statutory sick pay, but those costs have been more than offset by the cut in employers' national insurance contributions.
  It is my experience that businesses that provide a pleasant working environment suffer less from employee absenteeism, whether the sickness if genuine or feigned. Putting the responsibility for sick pay back on to the

  1317
  shoulders of employers will give them a major incentive to motivate the loyalty of their work forces. Opposition Members should welcome a move that would improve workers' health and well-being. Moreover, putting the burden of sick pay on employers will significantly save time on the Department of Social Security paper-shuffling that company wages clerks have to endure. That too will be an economic saving to employers.
  The Government's approach to the national insurance fund and their way of dealing with the deficit is practical, imaginative and realistic. The Government are clearly aware of the need to create a strong and lively economy in order to finance welfare provision. In reducing employers' contributions recently, and employees' contributions a few years ago, they have realised the importance of keeping taxes as low as possible and are doing everything within their power to protect the motivation and enterprise of the work force.
  One of the most attractive features in the approach to tackling the national insurance deficit is the care with which our lowest-paid have been treated. Even after the increase in contributions set out in the Bill, employees who earn less than £130 a week will still pay less national insurance than they did under the Labour Government in 1979. That is an impressive statistic.
  The lowest-paid employees will be affected least of all by the rise in contributions. Those under the lower earnings limit will continue to make no contribution to the national insurance fund and, above that limit, those who are paid less will make a smaller contribution to funding the increase, as the hon. Member for Garscadden knows, having read the Conservative research department brief.
  An employee earning £60 a week will pay just 3p a week extra, while someone earning £200 a week will have to pay £1·43 a week extra. There is a maximum of £4·56 a week. Labour would have abolished that ceiling.
  The lower-paid have always contributed less to the national insurance scheme. That is right and proper. It is admirable that the Government have accentuated that feature of the system. The changes to the national insurance scheme introduced in 1985 and 1989 provided that result. The reduced rate of contributions, which was enacted in 1985, means that the lower the pay, the greater the proportion of earnings that is assessed at the lower rate.
  The Government's emphasis on the needy has been demonstrated by the extra help with fuel costs being made available to pensioners. I expected Opposition Members to intervene at this point but, as none is doing so, I shall point out that although the Opposition talk about small sums being given, £120 billion is being made available to just 15 million needy and pensioners. Clearly, that figure has got through to Opposition Members—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is about to be an intervention from the Chair. How do the hon. Gentleman's comments relate to the Second Reading of the Bill under consideration?
  Mr. Fabricant: I bring to the attention of the House the Government's general policy on social security and care of the needy, but I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to the more narrow subject.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one possible relevant point is that pensions are paid from the
  1318
  national insurance fund and they are being uprated to help pensioners and the needy? Does he recall the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) saying, before the Budget, that 50p compensation per pensioner would be more than adequate? The hon. Gentleman changed his tune after the Budget. Perhaps he would like to intervene on that subject.
  Mr. Fabricant: I await a further intervention, but I see that there is none forthcoming.
  The Government have given much encouragement to people taking out pension schemes funded by this contribution. Behind that lies the Government's aim to construct a welfare system that gives incentive to personal responsibility. It has been eminently successful, with some 15 million people—three quarters of those eligible—opting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. Some 5 million people have private pensions, including 1·4 million self-employed people. I am pleased to note that the present arrangements, confirmed in the Bill, are working so well. They are appreciated by the self-employed, and I am glad that no attempt has been made to change them.
  Mr. Bates: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the state earnings-related pension scheme, and national insurance generally, may I ask whether he accepts that one of the principal advantages of private pensions is that the money put into them can be invested, thereby helping the economy to continue to grow?
  Mr. Fabricant: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, money from pension funds has been used in ventures that have created employment for people who might otherwise be unemployed and have to draw from the very fund for which the Bill provides.
  Mr. Flynn: Did the hon. Gentleman say that 15 million people have opted out of SERPS and into private personal pension schemes? I do not rise to query the figure, but I believe that it is massively inaccurate. Now that it is becoming apparent that at least 500,000 people who opted out of occupational pension schemes face poverty and old age and 1·5 million people who have opted out of SERPS also face disaster, there will be an enormous scandal because of the inherent waste of personal pension schemes. The money invested is gobbled up by huge commissions, administrative charges and profits for the company concerned. The national insurance scheme is efficient and cost-effective.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his speech, which enabled me to have a breather. I confirm that 15 million people have opted out of SERPS and into various schemes. If he would like to check the figures, he can read them in the Conservative party brief which the hon. Member for Garscadden clutches and will no doubt use in his wind-up speech.
  The measures in the Bill will naturally be viewed in the wider context of the recently announced changes to national insurance benefits, such as the replacement of unemployment benefit with the new job seeker's allowance and the replacement of invalidity and sickness benefits with incapacity benefit.
  In "Social Insurance and Allied Services", Beveridge, the founding father of the welfare state, who acknowledged that state provision should be limited, wrote:

  1319
  "The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum for himself and his family."
  Provision for the sick and elderly is absolutely necessary and a national minimum is, and always will be, provided.
  Even the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, in The Guardian on 18 January 1993:
  "It is the Labour Party that is seen as in favour of molly-coddling people. We have to be tough with ourselves and ask why that has happened. We have to convince people that we are not a tax and spend party."
  Clearly, the Labour party continues to fail to get that message across.
  Unconditional and long-enduring benefits for the unemployed are superficially attractive—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already warned the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks to the Bill under consideration. The more general remarks that he is now making could have been made in previous debates in the House in the past fortnight or so.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Government's policy has been very different from that of the Opposition and has yielded spectacular results. Britain is the only nation in Europe that is not sliding deeper into recession. The Labour party is wringing its hands with pity for the needy but, whenever it has been in power, it has been unable to deliver the goods.
  The provisions that we are considering reflect the Government's emphasis on sound finance and an unwavering commitment to those in need. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I wish to raise some fundamental questions about the future of national insurance, and shall not therefore follow the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), although I am bound to say that I could just about tell where Beveridge ended and the hon. Gentleman carried on.
  Despite the giggling on the Conservative Benches, we are dealing with some serious questions. I make a plea that, at some stage in the debate, the Minister should present us with a statement about the Government's view on the future of national insurance. Clearly, many different factors affect national insurance now, on both the contributions side and the benefits side. What is lacking from the Government is an overall statement about how they see the future of national insurance—if they see a future for it at all. It is difficult to understand that because we face, on the one hand, higher contributions—hence today's debate—and, on the other, lower benefits in real terms for many people who draw from the fund.
  Mr. Bates: The point has been made several times that the amount spent on social security this year is about £74·5 billion. Over the next three years, it is due to rise to about £92 billion. That is not less out for more in.
  Mr. Wicks: Obviously, we are spending more for a range of reasons, some good and some bad. Many people are living longer and are rightly drawing their pensions, although in real terms those pensions are far lower than they would have been if they had not been de-indexed from earnings in 1980. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire,
  1320
  who described trends affecting social security expenditure over many decades, was having us on, historically speaking.
  Unemployment has been the feature of the past decade and a half, coinciding with a particular political epoch. Since the war, wise Governments—both Conservative and Labour—have pursued policies of mass employment. There was lower social security expenditure because of that macro-economic policy. I do not concede, therefore, that high public spending on social security is necessarily an indicator of sound social policy. In part, it is a sign of bad economic policy.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Wicks: Does the hon. Gentleman have more to say?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He blames unemployment, yet Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain—once again, we are grateful to the Conservative party briefing for this information—are all having to introduce measures similar to the one that we are debating.
  Mr. Wicks: I do not think that leadership in Britain means following bad practice abroad. As we did in the war and thereafter, we should renew our national determination to move back to full employment. As the hon. Gentleman will see, he is not the only one who can support Beveridge. I, too, have read the Beveridge report and I intend to quote from it.
  I renew my plea to the Government to make a strong statement on their vision for the future of national insurance. If we agree today—we may not—to increase contributions by 1 per cent., we should know the context of that decision and the strategy behind it. I want to spend some time outlining the changes that have affected Britain in the post-war period—how the risks have changed and how new risks have materialised as a result of social and demographic change. We need to ask how those risks will be dealt with in future.
  In a sense, the modern history of social insurance starts with William Beveridge. It has, of course, a much longer history in the voluntary and state sectors here and in other European countries such as Germany. But we start, conveniently, with Beveridge who, in many respects could be regarded as a dreamer of dreams, a reverist, a man who had a vision for the future.
  Equally, in many important respects Beveridge was a superb technician. He was a planner. Many of his wartime speeches are well known and oft recited, even today, because they had more to say about the 1990s, perhaps, than about the 1940s—not least on unemployment. The man's planning and technical abilities were impressive.
  One of the strengths of the Beveridge report lay not in the technical detail or the broad policy but in how Beveridge and his colleagues came up in the midst of a war with a view of society, demography and employment, and of the roles of men and women. Some of his assumptions, not least about the role of women, turned out to be wrong—a good thing, we might say. Still, he had a vision, and Parliament and the Government also need a vision when they set national insurance in the context of social and economic change.
  What has changed since Beveridge? First and foremost, unemployment has changed. Beveridge assumed, in line

  1321
  with the Keynesian thinking of the time, that we could move towards full employment. He did not underestimate the difficulties, but that was his vision. In the simple, powerful language that he used in many wartime speeches, he spoke of the five giant evils that Britain needed to destroy if we were to construct a decent society for ourselves. He spoke of the evils of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Many modern politicians would do well to copy Beveridge's language and adapt it. Too often these days, our debates get bogged down in detail and jargon. The landmarks are never clear.
  William Beveridge had something important to say about the giant evil of idleness, by which he meant unemployment:
  "Idleness is the largest and the fiercest of the five giant evils and the most important to attack."
  That is our text for the future of national insurance and for the 1990s. We are learning in many areas, not least those of crime and education, that unless our vision demands a move back to full employment we will always face difficulties with social security expenditure and with meeting needs that must be met through the social security system. If we lack that vision, we shall have to spend billions of pounds keeping people out of work. Macro-economic policy should make it its main business to put people back into work.
  What is the Government's vision, or assumption, about full employment and unemployment? I am genuinely pleased that unemployment is falling. I see too many victims of it in my surgeries. Each time we hear of someone getting a job it is a victory for that person and that person's family, and for our community and economy—
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was reprimanded three times by Madam Deputy Speaker for not confining myself narrowly to the subject of the Bill. Has not the hon. Gentleman allowed himself to stray?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if the hon. Member had deviated by even a quarter of an inch, I would have reprimanded him. I find his speech extremely interesting so far.
  Mr. Wicks: And I write my own speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Fabricant: So do I.
  Mr. Wicks: Do not admit too much, my friend.
  If we cannot grasp the relationship between national insurance and methods of ensuring ourselves against modern risks and against unemployment, we in this House will have a problem. I ask the Government in all sincerity why, if we can set targets and bands for inflation, we cannot set them for full employment, too. The Red Book seems to assume that there will be 2·75 million unemployed for the foreseeable future. Is that a technical assumption? Is it the Government's judgment? If it is the former, what does it mean? Will the Government tell us today what they think unemployment will be like in two years' time, or by the year 2000? My worry is that, welcome as the fall in unemployment is, it may not be enough. Do the Government believe that unemployment will fall to 2 million? What are their assumptions?
  1322
  A Government's assumptions about these matters were vital to Beveridge's social insurance plan, just as they are vital to social insurance today.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extraordinarily difficult to make realistic calculations of unemployment? Many economists believed that unemployment probably would not start to fall until next spring, yet since February this year, each month, including this month, unemployment has consistently fallen. That highlights how difficult it would be to make a meaningful or realistic calculation of that sensitive economic indicator.
  Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, but it seems to me that we have a Parliament and a Government because things are difficult. The more fundamental point is whether the attack on idleness and the achievement of full employment is a real objective—not a wish, because we all wish it—of economic policy. Wise people in the past from all parties—Keynes, Beveridge, Attlee and Macmillan—felt that full employment was vital. Do the Government feel that it is vital? What policy tools do they have to achieve that in the coming months and years?
  The second change which has affected the landscape of national insurance, and which is therefore crucial to consideration of the Bill, is in employment patterns. We have seen the rise of the two-worker family and a massive increase in female employment, which is so important to social security. Indeed, the increase in female employment is one of the most important social security factors in this country. Mothers are able to work, although not enough can find work. There would have been far more family poverty if it were not for the employment of mothers. That is more important than child benefit and family credit combined.
  I will highlight another change which affects any national insurance scheme. Although we live longer nowadays, we are employed for a smaller proportion of our lives, because we enter the labour market later. Many working-class boys and girls will not get jobs when they are 16, some perhaps never, although I hope that most will. They may get jobs when they are 17, 18 or 19. Who knows when the children of middle-class, professional people—I have two children at university now—will get jobs? They may be in their early or mid-20s. That must have implications for the contributions and benefits that we are discussing today.
  I should like to relate another interesting feature of the Government's proposal that women should be able to get pensions at the age of 65. We are leaving the labour market earlier. One of the great myths about society, social security and pensions is that men work until they are 65. Many do not, and the data show that the changes have been dramatic.
  In 1951, in the first census after the war, 88 per cent. of men aged between 60 and 65—the pre-retirement group—were economically engaged or active. The Beveridge assumption that men worked from when they were boys until they retired at 65 was then more or less true. The 1991 figures for that age group showed that just 57 per cent. were economically active, to use the economists' unhelpful jargon. I say unhelpful because the "economically active", according to economists, include some of the unemployed. In practice, just 49 per cent. of men in that age group were employed in 1991, and the percentage may be less now.

  1323
  Should we now build contributions and benefits for men and women based on their eventual entitlement at 65, when the trends are going the other way? Why have the Government hit on 65 suddenly when so many have retired for good reasons or ill, be it voluntary retirement or redundancy, long before that age? That is an important question which I should like put to the Government.
  The third change affects the caring role of the family. Any national insurance scheme which relates to social security must have a grasp and a concept of the caring role of the family, which is its most important function. Today, families have fewer children. The average is about 2, or 1·8 per woman. However, children are dependent on their parents for longer than in the immediate post-war period. As has been said, gone are the days when most young people would leave school at 16 to get things called "jobs". Most do not do so now, for good, bad and ugly reasons.
  How does the social security system deal with that? How does it deal with the emerging role of the family in caring for its elders and betters? The figures show that 6·3 million people are family carers who look after elderly parents or another relative. Given that many of those carers are women, some of whom, although not all, must leave employment, what are the implications for social security?
  I know that the Government have some answers—for example, that national insurance contributions have been allowed for. However, any future strategy for national insurance must pay more attention to the role of people, many of whom are in their 50s or early 60s, who are carers or workers, or both. National insurance must reflect those trends. Were he alive today, William Beveridge would have looked at that issue when framing a social policy. We should do the same.
  The fourth change is in the risks which people face in their lives, and the implications for national insurance and other parts of the social security system of family change and family breakdown. Looking again at the Beveridge report—as one does most evenings—one sees that Beveridge said little about one-parent families. He talked mainly about widowhood and the need to have a national insurance system to look after widows and the few widowers. The phenomenon of the large proportion of single unmarried mothers—probably 18 per cent. or almost one in five of our children live in one-parent families—is a key challenge for social security, as the Government recognise. What are the implications for national insurance? Are there any implications?
  It is fascinating that Beveridge with his sexist view, as we would say now, of the role of men and of national insurance, nevertheless recognised that, when a marriage ended, a new risk of poverty was presented. He toyed with the idea in his report that perhaps a national insurance scheme should recognise the risks that many women faced when a marriage ended through no fault of their own, as he put it.
  Beveridge could not frame detailed policies and, of course, the national insurance system, as opposed to other parts of social security, never recognised the risks of divorce. If the Beveridge questions about changes in family life and the risks that we face were asked today, a latter-day Beveridge would accept that almost four in 10 of recent marriages would end in divorce. More and more men and women, but particularly children, become victims of the social revolution and of family change. That
  1324
  revolution has not been bloodless. How are we to socially secure people? Is it through social insurance, or through other aspects of social security?
  Mr. Burns: Has the hon. Gentleman read Philip Ziegler's biography of Harold Wilson, in which the author goes into great detail on putting together the Beveridge report and Harold Wilson's work on it? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may not like the answer that Beveridge would have come up with to the question that he is posing.
  Given that Beveridge was very much a figure of the 1940s, would he not find the situation in Britain in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s with regard to single-parent families somewhat incomprehensible?
  Mr. Wicks: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but Beveridge understood rather more than the hon. Gentleman implies. In the report, he said that a housewife's loss of home maintenance without her consent and not through her fault was one of the risks of marriage against which she should be insured, and that she should not depend on assistance. However, that did not lead to legislation.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that Beveridge would be disturbed by some of the family changes which affect us. I am sure that he would be disturbed. We should be disturbed that seven out of 10 one-parent families depend on income support. Eighty-five per cent. of one-parent families depend on income support at some stage. I am disturbed about that, because it leads to massive public spending which, in a better world, we would spend elsewhere. It also means that too many of our children and our citizens live in desperate poverty. With Christmas coming, I do not relish that fact. It is a challenge to us all. We not not be so far apart on that one.
  In addition to the social changes that I have outlined, there have been changes in social security benefits such as the rise of non-contributory, non-means-tested benefits which challenge the concept of national insurance.
  I end by repeating my plea. We could have a relatively narrow debate today on whether the 1 per cent. increase is too much or too little. We could argue about the benefits to be cut. However, unless we place the measure in a wider context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden has done, and unless we talk about the Government's vision and strategy for the future of national insurance when we face new risks in the light of social change, we shall not be able to debate and make the decisions on what many regard as a grey and boring area of public policy, but one that may have more impact on the life of our nation and the welfare of our people than even the GATT round.
  We are discussing vital matters which affect millions of people, many of whom face enormous risks. I encourage the Minister to make a strong statement about the future of national insurance and its strategy today.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in tonight's important debate. We have heard from hon. Members on both sides how important the welfare state is to Britain. It is the cornerstone for people who need benefits and require help from those who can afford to pay.
  Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated a fundamental division between the two sides of the House. Beveridge wanted a system of national insurance in which

  1325
  people paid contributions and claimed them back as a right. The hon. Member refers to a poor law scheme under which people had payments as a charity.
  Mr. Evans: Obviously I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The measures are a safety net for those in need; however, other Government policies provide a trampoline for people who want to spring up and help themselves. They represent a self-help philosophy, as well as supporting those who cannot help themselves.
  Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend has touched on a key point. Is it not the case that the Labour party Social Justice Commission was instructed to consider whether we ought to means-test all benefits? Is that not at odds with the Beveridge principle about which we have heard so much?
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not sure where the Labour party thinks it is going or whether it knows where it is going on social security. I asked the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) some questions and I did not receive sensible replies. When we ask what policies we could expect from the Labour party, we receive blank stares. One of my hon. Friends asked the hon. Member for Garscadden a specific question, but he was unable to respond.
  The Government have increased massively the money being provided through the social security system. In 1979, it was just over £40 billion. We are now talking about £74·5 billion and rising, as the Government are absolutely certain to ensure that the increases will stay ahead of inflation to ensure that those on benefits will not suffer.
  Mr. Heald: One of the criticisms by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, was that the Conservative party is committing a fraud on the nation by abandoning the contributory principle. Yet David Blunkett said recently:
  "The Inland Revenue and Benefits Agencies should be amalgamated"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must do a little more homework and refer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
  Mr. Heald: I was carried away with the exuberance of my own verbosity, and I apologise.
  The hon. Member for Brightside said that we should abandon the contributory principle in favour of automatic eligibility. What does my hon. Friend consider to be Labour party policy on this?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. I am at a loss to establish what Labour party policy is. Labour Members are behaving like Liberal Democrats, in that they say one thing to one group of people and something else to another. Perhaps, before the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Garscadden, or another Labour Member, will explain to us in detail the Labour party policy on social security.
  The social security system is the cornerstone of the welfare state, but the most important principle of the national insurance fund is that we pay out what we put into that fund.
  One of the greatest commitments that the Government have made to national insurance and social security is to
  1326
  the elderly. We have heard all sorts of things this evening from the Labour party about why the Government are spending more money on social security. Under the Conservative Government, people are living longer than ever before. That is another great achievement of the Conservatives.
  The 14 years of Conservative government have witnessed a real increase in expenditure on benefits to pensioners of 33 per cent. Labour Members talk sincerely about caring for elderly people, but during their last period of office the increase was about 3 per cent. That shows the difference between the words of the Labour party and the action of a Conservative Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) reminded me that, on two occasions when the Labour party was in government, it stopped the Christmas bonus. It is useful to remind ourselves of that.
  An increasing problem with national insurance is that, because people are living longer, there are far more people of pensionable age. When people reach retirement, they are living longer in retirement, so the bill is forever increasing.
  The deficit which characterises the national insurance fund is made up by the Treasury grant which was mentioned as £7·5 billion for the current year. That has to come from the hard-earned money of taxpayers, and we are talking about hard-pressed budgets. That money could be used in other Departments, or even to help relieve the stress on the budget deficit.
  The contributory benefits are available to all who contribute, so if the levels of benefit are uprated, surely it is reasonable to ask that the rise be reflected by a comparable rise in the contributions.
  Benefits have been rising dramatically, while national insurance contributions have been frozen as a percentage for more than a decade. The readjustment of the level of contribution is inevitable, and must be keenly anticipated by anyone who favours sound economic policy as a foundation for our country. If we are to maintain benefits at their current satisfactory rates, more funding must be found.
  Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: I was talking about sound economics, and I would be rather surprised if anyone on the Opposition Benches knew anything about that.
  Mr. Flynn: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. It is clear that the Government are fielding people who are reading their briefs and have no knowledge of social security. It is a great shame that we have not heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who does know something about it.
  Has the hon. Gentleman read the report published yesterday by the Social Service Advisory Committee—the Government's own advisers? After looking at several models of what is likely to happen in future, it stated that only by using the most pessimistic assumption will the percentage of GDP spent on social security rise to the year 2000.
  The hon. Member for Havant also said that the demographic time bomb has been vastly exaggerated. Instead of listening to Conservative Members speaking from prepared briefs that they barely understand, why can we not hear from those who understand social security?
  Mr. Evans: I gave way in the hope that I would hear something useful from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I should have known better. It is a shame that the hon. Member still comes out with that sort of slur.
  We feel strongly about the system of social security payments. We are here to ensure that the amount of money paid out of the national insurance fund will be met from the contributions of those people who pay into it. It is only in the Walt Disney world of designer socialism, in which the hon. Member for Newport, West lives, that other people pick up the tab.
  There will come a time when the hon. Member will understand that the bill will have to be paid. He talks about more money for this sector and more money for that sector, but somebody has to pick up the tab. The Government have that responsibility, and that is why we are here this evening.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member has spoken about the need to ensure that those contributing to the fund contribute enough to pay benefits. Why is it that the Government's proposals retain the ceiling on national insurance contributions, which throws the greatest burden on people on lower earnings?
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—to the hon. Lady. I almost said "my hon. Friend"—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did".] I would not like to put an end to her career within her party.
  Are we getting closer to what the Opposition believe? Do they still have a policy to abolish the ceiling on upper earnings? That would mean, effectively, an increase in taxation for a lot of people earning more than £20,000 or £22,000 per annum. I was under the impression that the Labour party decided it would no longer go along with that policy. I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) if she will tell me what the Labour party's policy is in regard to the upper earnings limit, over and above a contribution of £430.
  Mrs. Kennedy: It is a question of fairness and the importance of ensuring that people contribute fairly to the national insurance fund.
  Mr. Evans: We will not get an answer to our question. The hon. Lady talks about fairness, but with these national insurance contributions, the Government have ensured that those on the lowest level of earnings pay nothing towards national insurance. People start to pay only above the £57 level. There is a £430 ceiling on national insurance contributions, and we are more than happy to stay with that.
  A contributory factor in the Labour party's defeat at the last election is that its members paraded around the country and told people on modest incomes that they wished to put up their income tax by 10 per cent. and their national insurance contributions by 9 per cent. People would not tolerate that.
  Mr. Bates: I may be able to help my hon. Friend about the information that he tried to get from Opposition Members. I asked the same question of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) during the debate on the Address. I asked him if he still stood by his policy of abolishing the upper earnings limit. His reply was:
  "Our policies are going before the Commission on Social Justice".—[Official Report,25 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 597.]
  Mr. Evans: That comes as no surprise to me. We will not get any answers to any of the questions that we ask the Labour party.
  The Labour party was so embarrassed by the message that it paraded throughout the country during the last general election, that it decided to get rid of its shadow Chancellor and promote him to leader of the party. If that is what he said when he was shadow Chancellor, I cannot wait for the next election to find out what he will say as leader. He will get into all sorts of problems.
  People on lower earnings will be protected. Only those earning more than £57 will pay national insurance contributions. Before Opposition Members uncharacteristically intervene yet again to say how hard done by people are because of the increase in national insurance contributions, they should know that, even with the increase, people earning approximately £130 a week will be paying lower national insurance contributions under the Government than they were under the last Labour Government, and will receive far more in benefits.
  The Labour party's offerings on national insurance at the last election provided no surprises. If we ask people in the street what the Labour party means to them in taxation policies, we will be told that it stands for higher taxes.
  The Labour party stands for economic stagnation and general colourless misery. It has no ideas about the economy, and that is one reason why Labour has been out of power for the past 14 years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not mind how wide the debate is on social security, but we really ought to be debating social security and not general taxation.
  Mr. Evans: I was trying to demonstrate that the problem with the message that the Labour party is trying to sell—whether it is about taxation or national insurance—is that, if the ceiling on the top rate of national insurance were removed, the two might as well be merged and called a general taxation, which would simply be increased by 20 per cent. for people earning over those modest levels.
  Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: Let me make a little more progress.
  The hon. Member for Broadgreen talked about removing the ceiling on national insurance contributions. Once a Government went above a certain level, they would have the problem of disincentives, which would encourage a brain drain, or a fame drain. People who earned a certain amount of money would want to look at the opportunities before them, particularly within the single European market. During the 1970s, under the last Labour Government, people were leaving the country in droves because of the high rates of tax and national insurance.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is far too young to recall this, but in 1979 the top rate of tax was about 98p in the pound.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled that general taxation matters are out of order.
  Mr. Heald: The great rip-off in the Labour party's scheme to abolish the upper earnings limit was that it was prepared to agree that the people paying the highest contributions should get the highest earnings-related additions and long-term benefits. That was a complete abolition of the contributory principle. If it was not, there was no point in it.
  Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is clear that the contributory principle means nothing to the Labour party. It is interested only in grabbing as much money as possible from as many people as possible. It is not just the top earners who would be hit by increases in national insurance contributions: other earners would be hit by it or by other taxes.
  As well as ensuring that as many people as possible contribute to the national insurance fund, we must ensure that those who ought to be contributing to it are doing so. A certain group of people tend to exploit loopholes in the system to avoid payment—whether of income tax or national insurance on eligible income. That includes the giving and receiving of non-pecuniary bonuses, in the full and certain knowledge that the purpose of such schemes is the avoidance of national insurance payments. That cannot be permitted; such loopholes must be blocked as much as possible.
  We must deal with those who try to claim exotic goods as payment in kind instead of bonuses. Not only are such people avoiding national insurance payments; others who need the benefits are not receiving them.
  In his Budget speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor spoke of ensuring that such loopholes are filled; it is estimated that, by filling them, the Government will reclaim £15 million per week. Nor do I believe that it stops there. I believe that the cheats and fraudsters have had their day. This unwelcome industry is not new, but it has become increasingly conspicuous as the level of abuse has risen.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his position absolutely clear on both the loopholes and the fraud. If we can tackle both, there will be far more money for those in need.
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of abuses of the system. Does he support the decision of Social Security Ministers not to pay invalidity benefit to women aged between 60 and 65, many of whom are suffering severe hardship? That decision contravenes a decision by a European Commissioner, who has said that the Government are in breach of EC directive 79/7, dealing with equality of payment of pensions to men and women.
  Mr. Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will mention that in winding up.
  Dr. Godman: What does the hon. Gentleman think?
  Mr. Evans: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying; but given the kind of benefits that the Government are paying out, it is amazing that he should try to pick holes in certain cases. The Government are paying out a vast sum of taxpayers' and national insurance payers' money, and they are keen to ensure that it is targeted on those who desperately need it. I believe in that principle, and I am sure that the Government will continue to operate it.
  Dr. Godman: What about all those women?
  Mr. Evans: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is really interested in hearing what I have to say about cracking down on national insurance fraud. If not, perhaps I should proceed to my next point.
  The Government have embarked on an anti-fraud strategy to ensure that the money in the national insurance system goes only to those who need and deserve it. That strategy is absolutely right.
  Mr. James Clappison: The exchange that we have just heard illustrates the width of definition that sometimes applies to loopholes and fraud. However, many of our constituents—including both small business men and employees—will understand full well what my hon. Friend means. As people who play by the rules and pay their tax and national insurance contributions, they are caused great anxiety by such activities.
  Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It does not really matter whether we are talking about business men and others with money who try to avoid paying their dues, or about those who defraud the system; the net outcome is that the money is not going into the system to be paid to those who need the benefits.
  We need to take fraud seriously, and the Government are doing so. They want to ensure that money lost through fraud is recovered: their current target is over £1 billion. It is very ambitious, but I believe that they can achieve it. They are considering the introduction of identity cards, and have already introduced bar coding.
  I believe that the Bill is all about ensuring that those who need benefits receive them, and that those who are able to pay are made to do so. That is why I support it.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. If ever there was an argument against guillotine motions, it is provided by the requirement for Opposition Members to come in and make 25-minute speeches—all of them repeating the arguments of the last general election—during debate of a serious social security Bill. That has increased my distaste for the guillotine. I hope that the Minister will relay my view to the Government's business managers.
  I believe that one of the most important principles enshrined in the contributory system set up by Beveridge is the principle of redistribution. What he was trying to achieve was not necessarily vertical redistribution, but redistribution throughout life: he sought to establish a system that would allow people to put away amounts to provide for untoward events such as sickness, invalidity, childbirth and old age during the economically active periods of their lives.
  For the reasons stated so eloquently by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and amplified by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), I feel that the Bill takes a serious step towards eroding that important element in our present social security system. If the 1 per cent. that it introduces had been raised and redeployed to improve the organisation of the system of redistribution throughout the lifetime, I for one would have been very much in favour of it; but it does not.
  As far as I can see, that 1 per cent. is an instrument of economic management, intended to deal with the public sector borrowing requirement. Of course I accept that there is a problem—
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: No. I want to allow as many other hon. Members as possible to speak, and I hope to make a short but relevant speech.
  My objection to the Bill, then, is that it is intended to raise money for economic and financial purposes. The public sector borrowing requirement certainly needs to be

  1331
  addressed, but it should be addressed in other ways. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to start tinkering with the national insurance contributory system in this way.
  The Bill contains some tidying-up provisions—I think that that is the best way in which I can paraphrase the Minister's introductory remarks—in the form of changes in the formula for the element that goes from the national insurance fund to the national health service.
  In parenthesis, I object strongly to clause 2(3), which makes those changes—not because I object to an important and beneficial clarification of the position, but because it is retrospective. If we look at the provision in detail, we see that it goes back to the Social Security Act 1989. It deals with amendments that
  "shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the 1992 Act"—
  that is, the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
  The Minister is relatively new to his job. Let me say to him what I have said to Social Security Ministers before him, and will no doubt say to his successors. The way in which we are scrutinising this legislation does not give us a proper opportunity to deal with the matters that I have raised.
  It is black marks for the parliamentary draftsmen and departmental lawyers if they make mistakes allowing legislation to be capable of misinterpretation or misconstruction. If the Minister wishes to earn his pay as an Under-Secretary of State, he should go back to the Department and tear strips off those who produced this ambiguity. He should remind them of their duty to ensure that such things do not happen again.
  Of course, our legislature has a duty to ensure that legislation is scrutinised properly; but guillotine motions do not help us to ensure that legislation is dealt with by the House in a proper and orderly fashion.
  While welcoming the change, I think that it should not have happened in the first place. I consider that to be a serious point to which attention should be given.
  The context of the debate is better informed as a result of the ninth report produced by the Social Security Advisory Committee. I quote from a press release dated 15 December:
  "In a final chapter"
  of the report,
  "the Report questions the view that social security spending"—
  which comes from the national insurance fund—
  "is out of control, but suggests that a fair, adequate and affordable social security system for those in need is essentially the preservation of the social fabric of the nation."
  I strongly believe that that is true.
  If we are getting into some of the cruder and more ideological comments made by Tory Members behind the Minister about the need to curtail expenditure and so on, that is a proper matter for political debate. However, I would prefer to focus carefully, as the SSAC report does, on examining how we plan the future growth of social security expenditure. There is a debate to be had about the growth of social security spending in the past because I want to ensure that every penny is used properly.
  To give an example, at my party's last conference it was decided that if there is to be an increase in the pension provision, that increase should be targeted at and linked to the earnings of those who are on income support and means-tested benefits. We are struggling to see how we can constrain the growth of social security spending from the national insurance fund.
  1332
  There are some worrying implications in what Tory Members said about not believing in growth. I am prepared to argue about how we spend the growth in social security expenditure. However, if we are starting to talk about real cuts in social security provision, the SSAC report is right: we start looking at the "social fabric of the nation" and how it will be eroded.
  If the Government do not pay through the benefit system, they will need to pick it up through criminality, drug abuse and all the other downstream effects that will result from taking money out of the pockets of those who need it most. I recommend the Social Security Advisory Committee report. I know that the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) are experts on social security. I hope that they will examine the report.
  Mr. Bates rose—
  Mr. Kirkwood: I will not give way.
  There are some unfair, hidden tax increases in the Bill. The hon. Member for Garscadden deployed the case eloquently. I shall reinforce what he said, but I will not repeat his comments. The vast majority of people do not think all that far ahead. Low-income families have a week-to-week view of life, because that is the way in which their finances stretch. I do not think that they are properly apprised of the sort of difficulties they will face when the tax increases bite in the new financial year. To start thinking about increases of the level of £9 per week in 1994–95 and £16 per week in the 1995–96 fiscal year will not provide difficulties only for low-income families. It will bite into the disposable income that is available for middle-income families.
  We tend properly to concentrate on financially disadvantaged households in social security debates, and it is right that we do so. But looking at the changes that will flow after 6 April 1994, I think that many middle-income families will have real difficulties. Although they may have reasonably big incomes in terms of their net take-home pay, they also have a corresponding level of commitments.
  I do not know whether the Government have done any research on this. When they make changes of this magnitude, I certainly hope that they do research so that they can measure the exact impact of such changes on the balance of disposable income for middle-income families.
  I am nervous about how the changes will play out for middle-income groups. I hope that the Minister will say something about that later. Low-income and middle-income families will find it difficult to cope with the totality of the tax increases—something like £15,000 million in 1995–96, and the national insurance increases provided in the Bill are about one sixth of that tax take.
  Earlier, I said that, if the national insurance fund is increased, it should be increased in order that benefit expenditure can be correspondingly increased. In the Bill, we see changes in the benefits that are available. Those changes are an important element of it. The job seeker's allowance will be means-tested after six months.
  Mr. Bates: The hon. Gentleman has made some prize comments about the speeches of my hon. Friends. I draw his attention to something that he said:
  "The national insurance contribution system is now so shot through with anomalies and piecemeal reforms that we should start again from scratch."—[Official Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, c. 73.]
  Is that still the hon. Gentleman's view?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I know I should not have given way, because the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the final part of my speech.
  I said that the Bill provides for cuts in benefit. The job seeker's allowance will be means-tested after six months. Sickness benefits and invalidity benefit will be translated into incapacity benefit. That benefit will be liable to tax, and there will be tighter medical tests.
  Another matter that must be taken into account is that the age of eligibility for the state pension for women is being changed to 65 years. As hon. Members know, that is being phased in between the years 2010 and 2020. Savings are being made simultaneously with an increase in national insurance contributions of about £2.5 billion by 1996–97 for the job seeker's allowance and the sickness benefit and invalidity benefit changes, and about £5,000 million by the year 2025 for the change in the pension age. Increasing national insurance contributions at the same time as making those swingeing reductions in benefits is adding insult to injury.
  Anyone who studies objectively the imbalance that has occurred in the national insurance fund can see clearly that it has been occasioned by a combination of lower earnings and increased unemployment. The obvious answer to that strays outside the scope of this debate. Urgent attention is needed to promote growth and generate more employment.
  I ask the Minister to consider that one of the consequences of the increases will be that people will start to examine ways of getting round them. There are many benefits in kind which do not apply to national insurance contributions. I shall list a few of them for the Minister's consideration. For example, company cars, beneficial loans, private medical and dental attention, general expenses allowances, travel and subsistence allowances, entertainment, home telephone expenses which are paid or reimbursed and mobile telephone expenses escape national insurance contributions.
  If the Government are going down the road of not increasing general taxation—I think that would be a much more honest and straightforward way of raising public expenditure— they will need seriously to examine some of the benefits in kind which people will start to use or misuse in the future. We should pay attention to that matter.
  I should like to conclude by considering the future of the contributory principle of the national insurance fund, as I promised the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). I agreed with what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said in his interesting speech. He knows a great deal about the subject, and we have had many discussions about it over the years.
  I believe that we need to reform the national insurance contributory fund fundamentally. My opinion is reinforced by the Bill, because it is quite unforgivable for the Government to raid the national insurance fund in this way.
  I know that any reform would take time and would be difficult to introduce. It would take some explanation for people to understand that they no longer had entitlement to benefits. We must, however, consider how we plan to finance social security expenditure. There is a case for doing away with the contributory principle.
  We should be more honest and say that the future system should be based on a pay-as-you-go principle. The necessary money should be taken out of general taxation. That would make it easier for Governments of whatever political stripe to make better future provision, which is intelligible to ordinary people.
  1334
  The Bill is important. It deserves serious scrutiny, and I am sorry that it has been guillotined. The Government, however, have not made their case properly, although I believe that it is difficult for them to make a legitimate case for increasing the costs of employees through their national insurance contributions while using other mechanisms to reduce the benefits available through that very same fund.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I do not pretend to be an expert in social security, but it would be a poor day if hon. Members could not consider legislation that is important to their constituents unless they were experts in it. I found the comments of certain Opposition Members extremely patronising.
  It particularly ill behoves the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to make such comments when his party cannot come up with a consistent policy if it tries. In the Budget debate, the Liberals' Treasury spokesman, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) emphasised the importance of the contributory principle, but the hon. Gentleman has just suggested that it should be abolished. That inconsistency demonstrates that we are back on the old Liberal game of a thousand blooms on every branch.
  What has been startlingly absent from the debate is an appreciation of the difficulties of funding the type of system that we want for the future. I asked the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) how he would fund the deficit in the national insurance fund. He did not offer a proper answer but gave a bit of fudge here and a bit of mudge there. It is all very well to speak in lofty tones about Beveridge, full employment and other vital issues, but if one cannot say where the money for all that will come from, one is dead.
  In the 1992–93 report, the Government Actuary said that the fund required extra money and that one way of providing that would be to increase national insurance contributions. There may be alternative means of raising that money, but the Opposition cannot criticise the Government's proposals in the Bill unless they have such an alternative.
  It is not right to argue that full employment will be provided by increasing benefits. When Beveridge looked at the system he said that the starting point was full employment. These days, those countries with full employment are not those with the most over-weighty social and welfare provisions; they include Japan and Taiwan, not France and Germany. Today in Europe, 20 million people are unemployed. We must consider the future. If we want to return to full employment, we must ask ourselves how to achieve that. One way of doing so is to keep the social burden off employers' backs.
  Ms Ann Coffey: Such as sick pay.
  Mr. Heald: I did not catch that sedentary intervention.
  We are trying to remove the burdens on business so that it can be more competitive. Every major employers' group argues that that is necessary. Opposition Members argue that employees' national insurance contributions should remain at their low level, but that is not possible to achieve unless we increase taxation. If we did that, it would be extremely damaging to British industry.
  It is typical that the overlap between national insurance payments for unemployment benefit and income support

  1335
  hardly rates a mention in Opposition Members' speeches. Of those who are unemployed and receiving benefit, 70 per cent. are on income support. The rules governing income support and unemployment benefit are inconsistent, cumbersome and dealt with by different offices. Surely it is right that that system should be reformed. I cannot believe that Opposition Members would disagree.
  The Government have grasped the nettle to make that change and, at the same time, they have targeted the new job seeker's allowance in order to help people to get back to work. It is not as though anyone will lose as a result of that; rather they will gain, because the job seekers agreement will set them clear targets. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingham) may smile, but the success of the job club scheme shows that such measures work. Under the job seeker's grant, people will be given the help they need to go out to look for work.
  Mr. Wicks: Is there not an inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument? He seemed to argue that mass unemployment is now a fact of life and that, as testimony to that, it exists in foreign parts. He also supports the idea of the job seeker's allowance. Surely the notion behind it is that there are enough jobs out there to be sought, if only we got the benefits and the help right. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Does he see a future of mass unemployment or does he genuinely believe that we can provide a system under which people can not only seek jobs but find them?
  Mr. Heald: I am optimistic about the future, so long as we take the right measures. We must remove the burdens from business and train young people and those in work. We should give them the help that they need to find the jobs for which they are suited. The Government are taking such measures, but too often without the support of the Opposition. Their support should be forthcoming because those measures are in the interests of everyone.
  When the Labour party was in office, its record on national insurance was appalling. Under the Labour Government, employers' national insurance contributions stood at 13.5 per cent. and those of employees stood at 6.5 per cent. According to today's national insurance figures, someone earning £70 a week would, under Labour, have total costs of £14, whereas under the Conservatives that person costs £4.96. Under Labour, someone earning £130 would have total national insurance costs of £26, whereas under the Conservatives he costs £15. That shows that the Conservatives have removed the burden from businesses.
  The Labour party has not changed its spots. One need only study the shadow Budget, produced before the general election, to see that, because it proposed to remove the upper earnings limit. That would have meant that people who would have to pay higher contributions would be ripped off because they would not get the earnings-related addition to which they were entitled. That proposal was also fundamentally unpopular because people do not want to pay higher taxes. They want a liberated economy in which taxes are lower so that they can reap the benefits of their enterprise.
  Mr. Wicks: The comparisons with the previous Labour Government are helpful. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House of the cost of public spending on unemployment under that Labour Government compared with the costs under the Conservative Government? Would he care to speculate about how high expenditure on unemployment
  1336
  now impacts on taxes? What is the overall burden of taxes on the average family now compared to what it was under the Labour Government?
  Mr. Heald: I do not think that I shall have time to do that. I shall be happy to discuss that afterwards with the hon. Gentleman. If we had a socialist Government in the country now, we would have the same sort of system as in socialist countries abroad. If one considers what is happening in France—high unemployment and rising youth unemployment—it is not difficult to see that we do not want that in Britain, and that we must continue with the vigorous policies of this Conservative Government.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: The Second Reading speeches have been somewhat uneven and they have been worsened by a guillotine on this important Bill. In the time that we have available, we cannot go down the route of further criticism of that Government decision, but it has rather curtailed an important debate that I hope that we can continue in Committee.
  The speeches by some hon. Members have been extremely eloquent and thoughtful. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) especially, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who opened the debate.
  In the short time available I would like to reinforce some of the points that have been made and to demand answers to some of the questions that have been asked, which I would like the Minister to answer in winding up. It is important to note that most people in the country believe that the national insurance scheme is a partnership between the individual and state. Most individuals who contribute to the scheme do so on the understanding that it establishes, in principle, their entitlement to benefits if earnings are interrupted. The average man or woman, who has contributed to the fund during their working life, is being conned by the Government. The view of national insurance as a tax equivalent means that, contrary to the theory, the Government are able to increase contributions without introducing corresponding increases in benefits and, at the same time, erode the value of those benefits.
  As we have heard, this one-clause Bill is about the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions from 9 to 10 per cent. and is on top of the previous increase in the standard rate of national insurance contributions from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. and the abolition of the ceiling on employers' contributions. Overall, the amount raised in contributions has increased relative to other forms of tax and in terms of the percentage charged on most earnings. Much of this year's tax revenue will come from higher national insurance contributions and, as we know, the 1 per cent. increase in rates for employees and the self-employed will raise a staggering £2·26 billion in revenue in a full year. Significantly, that is £360 million more than a penny rise in the basic rate of income tax.
  National insurance is a regressive tax and will hit those much lower down the income scale than income tax, so that half a million people who are too poor to pay income tax will nevertheless pay national insurance. As we have already heard, a good example of that is the nursing auxiliary who earns around £6,000 a year and will pay an extra 38p a week in national insurance. However, if there were a penny rise in the basic rate of tax, that person would pay absolutely nothing more.

  1337
  The Government explain the increase in terms of the cost of contributory benefits. They put forward the view that it is right, in principle, that existing contributions should pay for contributory benefits. I do not dissent from that view. However, it is interesting to note that, in an interview on "Newsnight" in July, the Secretary of State for Social Security admitted that he had great sympathy with people's gut feeling of having paid for something through their national insurance contributions. Yet that has not prevented the Government from reducing the real value of national insurance benefits time and again since 1979.
  For example, the flat rate pension has been degraded by indexing its growth to prices rather than wages.
  Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bradley: I shall give way once.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman will obviously remember the point that I made—how would the fund be paid for in future? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Labour would reintroduce the link with earnings and, if so, how would it pay for it?
  Mr. Bradley: We have heard the Back-Bench Conservative Members attacking the Labour party time and again. We are debating a Government measure. The Government have time and again broken their manifesto commitments—on VAT on fuel, on mortgage tax relief and on home insurance. We are here to debate Government policies and I intend to do so.
  The House of Commons Library has estimated that the process of degrading pensions has knocked £19 off the value of a single pension. Had the same process been practised since 1948—we have heard much of Beveridge —today's single pension of £56·10 would be worth only £23 a week. Imagine an elderly person trying to live on that; yet, that is now the Government's chosen course.
  The build-up of earnings-related supplements has also been virtually eliminated. The earnings-related supplement paid with unemployment benefit was abolished in 1992, while child dependency additions were abolished in 1984.
  While SERPS entitlements remain, the adequacy of them is far from assured. Research shows that under the current rules, a person with a lifetime average earnings equal to the national average for males and retiring after 2009, would retire on a combined flat rate and a SERPS pension equal to 33 per cent. of gross earnings. That compares favourably with gross replacement rates of around 56 per cent. in Germany and between 59 per cent. and 71 per cent. in France. If the national insurance pension follows the declining course that is projected by Government's own figures, it is estimated that the gross replacement value for a state retirement pension will fall to between 33 per cent. and 27 per cent.
  On top of all that, eligibility for benefits has become harder for individuals to establish. Partial benefits in return for a partial contribution have been virtually abolished. Payment of reduced rates of unemployment benefit for those with less than a full contribution record was abolished in 1986 and qualification for short-term benefits has been made more difficult by a recent contribution record via paid employment now being absolutely essential.
  1338
  Numerous new regulations have been imposed to disqualify the jobless from receiving benefit. Unlike income tax, national insurance contributions which are overpaid—in that they are not sufficient to meet the declining eligibility for benefit—are not refunded and therefore a person wastes their individual contributions.
  We have also heard questions about the new job seeker's allowance, which is the latest change that the Government are making to break the link between contributions paid and the rights to a contributory benefit. The allowance reduces the entitlement to benefit from 12 months to six months, which will remove 90,000 people from entitlement to any benefit after six months—50,000 men and 40,000 women. The means test involving six months rather than one year means that people will also lose entitlement to benefit as a result of spouses' earnings.
  We must ask serious questions on that. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be additional payments for adult dependants with the contributory job seeker's allowance? Will he clarify the plans to base the rate of the job seeker's allowance on income support rates for those under 25 years? Does not that mean that there will be a reduced rate of benefit for all unemployed people under the age of 25 years, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden? We need clear answers to those questions.
  The new incapacity benefit will be taxable and subject to more stringent medical tests than is the case for invalidity benefit. It will be harder to get than invalidity benefit and it will be paid at a lower level. Will the Minister explain the principle that lies behind this contributory benefit? Two people living in the same street, in the same financial and social circumstances, and in the same physical state, could receive two different benefits. One could receive invalidity benefit and the other could receive a substantially reduced incapacity benefit. One benefit is taxed whereas the other is not. That will not only make a farce of the contributory principle, but will be a slap in the face of social justice.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, I raise the point about the future of the basic pension, which we have mentioned already. I refer to the recent comments by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury which may confirm our worst fears about the future of the pension. If his comments are anything to go by, no one under the age of 40 should expect to have a state pension on which to rely in old age. I know that that view differs from the Chancellor's view. Will the Minister make clear tonight on which side of the debate the Social Security team sits? Do the Secretary of State and his team support the undying principle of basic pension or do they support the Treasury team's view that it will ultimately wither and die, and that everyone will make alternative provision? Where do the Secretary of State and his team stand on that matter?
  All the cuts have been made in spite of the increase in national insurance contributions, which the Government claim has occurred to pay for contributory benefits. People are effectively told to keep on paying higher national insurance contributions, but not to expect anything in return. Understandably, such a policy is a cause for concern for those anxious about their future security. People must wonder where their years of contributions are rapidly disappearing. At the least, people should be informed of the reality of national insurance contributions,

  1339
  which is that they provide the Government with a means of raising taxation by the back door. They have little to do with the national insurance scheme as people understand it.
  People can no longer have confidence in the Government's claim to be the party of low taxation. Over and over again, the promises made in the election about the Conservatives the party of low taxation have been broken. The Tory manifesto says:
  "We will maintain mortgage tax relief."
  What have we had? The value of mortgage tax relief has been reduced in this Budget since the election. The manifesto says:
  "We are the only party that understands the need for low taxation."
  What has happened? We have had the biggest hike in taxation in history. We have had the biggest hike of 7p in the pound, to which the Chancellor himself has admitted. People will be paying on average an extra £9 a week in taxation next year and an extra £16 a week the year after. They need an explanation.
  We will oppose the Bill tonight because the changes in national insurance contributions are part of the way in which the Government are getting out of the hole caused by their economic mismanagement. The changes are a way in which to try to dupe the public into believing that national insurance is making a contribution to real benefits in the future rather than an effort to plug a hole in the Government's finances.
  7.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): For the second day running, we have had an interesting debate, with many varied contributions. I shall try to answer many of the detailed points put throughout the debate, including the questions asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  The hon. Gentleman began his speech with a number of clear truths. He said that it was a short, simple Bill; indeed it is. He said that it could be argued that the Bill was needed simply to pay for increased expenditure out of the national insurance fund. He said that, in a sense, that was true. It is true in every sense.
  The Bill's purpose is to bring the national insurance fund nearer to balance. The expenditure of the national insurance fund is much higher than its income—£5 billion higher. Its expenditure next year will be higher than it has been in the current year. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that national insurance contributions should be increased only so that expenditure on benefits out of the fund could be increased. That is the purpose of the increase. Expenditure out of the fund will be higher in 1994–95 than in 1993–94. That is why we seek to put more money into the fund for the financial year 1994–95.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire raised a point about the retrospective provisions in clause 2. Interestingly, he was the only hon. Member to raise that point—a point that we shall remember when we deal with some of the amendments in Committee. Like him, I am not enthusiastic about retrospective legislation. The provisions arise from the Social Security Act 1989, in which a drafting error was clearly made. There was an error by the Government and then an error by Parliament in passing the Act.
  1340
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition that a change needs to be made. It needs to be made to give proper legal cover for the money that passes out of the national insurance fund to go towards the costs of the national health service. Ministers decided, as soon as we were aware of the mistake, that we should take the first opportunity to correct it. That is what we are doing in the Bill and that aim should be supported by the whole House.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also raised the important questions of benefits in kind and differences between the income tax system and the national insurance contributions system. He may have seen the recent report of the tax and national insurance contributions working group which was established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Kirkwood indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not seen it; I strongly commend it to him because it makes extremely good reading. My right hon. Friend published the report in October. One of the working groups's main suggestions was that the definition of earnings should be aligned on the tax base, which would make subject to national insurance contributions all taxable benefits in kind and any vouchers regarded as earnings for tax purposes. We intend to consult the business community far more widely about the proposals next year and to discuss how they might be implemented. The working group outlined several different ways in which one might approach the alignment of the two systems. We recognise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said; he made an entirely valid point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) made an entertaining and well-informed speech, drawing in much detail from the briefing used to a much greater extent by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. Yesterday, they used CBI briefings; today, they employed briefings from the Conservative research department. I do not know what has gone wrong with the services of Labour party headquarters. Clearly, they are not supplying much material to Labour Members at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire pointed out that, after the increase, the lowest-paid would still pay lower national insurance contributions than the contributions that they paid in 1979. That is an extremely important point. He also reminded the House that the Bill reflected the Government's commitment to sound finance, a commitment that was also clear in the Budget.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made a thoughtful speech, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said. I did not agree with all of it. He said, for example, that the basis of indexation of pensions increases should not have been changed. We all have to consider that the implication of not changing the basis of indexation would be that expenditure from the national insurance fund would be £8·5 billion more than it is today. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party in general must consider how they would have financed that increase through the 1980s. That is the problem that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had at his party conference. He was overruled by the Liberal Democrats of the nation, despite his insistence on a particular pensions policy.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West referred to the future state pension age. There are powerful reasons for

  1341
  equalisation at 65, including the position of occupational pension schemes, international trends and the need to ensure that the system is affordable in the future. That issue runs through many of our deliberations about the national insurance fund and the social security system. It is our responsibility to ensure that the system is affordable in the future. Although some hon. Members argued that there should be no difficulty with that, the simple projection is that, although expenditure on pensions is just under £60 billion a year now, it is likely to be more than £60 billion in the 2020s and 2030s. That is only on the basis of indexation with prices. Those issues must be borne in mind.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West made two important points. One was about the level of unemployment in the future. He asked how much we could predict the future level of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) pointed out the difficulties faced by economists in forecasting future levels of employment. All that we do in the Government forecast is make stylised assumptions about the needs for next year. The assumption for next year is 2.75 million. Today, unemployment fell to lower than the stylised assumption in the Government's forecast. That is the limit of what we can forecast in calculating what we need next year, and for the national insurance fund, which is what the debate is about.
  My hon. Friend's most important point was to show how the social security system needs to change over time. There is a fair amount of common ground in some parts of the House on the idea that the system needs to change and evolve, and sometimes to be reformed. Sometimes it has to be refocused. We have to check that it is meeting the needs of society in the right way. That has important implications for the national insurance fund.
  The national insurance fund cannot be compared to a single-risk commercial insurance system. It cannot operate like a funded insurance system in which a specific contribution buys an absolute right for ever to a specific return. The national insurance fund is a pay-as-you-go system which relies on the ability of current contributors to pay in a sufficient amount to provide for expenditure on benefits which are currently payable. Social security schemes must be able to evolve, and as such, any Government must be able to make adjustments to the structure of the system to meet changing circumstances.
  That is the point with which many people agree, including the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Croydon, North-West and the Government. The only people who do not recognise that the social security system sometimes needs to be reformed are Opposition Front-Bench Members who, in these debates, often remind me of the Duke of Wellington in 1832 telling the other place that the British constitution had been created so perfectly in the first place that no improvement on it could possibly be devised.
  Yesterday, Opposition Front-Bench Members came to the House to defend the statutory sick pay system, the establishment of which they opposed 10 years ago. They have opposed every change to it. There they sit, glumly, a range of exhausted volcanoes, unable to come up with any ideas for the future, having privatised that activity and farmed it out to the Commission for Social Justice.
  Dr. Godman: When will the English Court of Appeal hear the appeal lodged by the Secretary of State and the chief adjudication officer against the decision taken by Commissioner Skinner on 1 April 1992 about the payment of invalidity benefit to women aged between 60 and 65? Is it likely that the Secretary of State will seek a referral to the European Court of Justice?
  Mr. Hague: On 26 July, the Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing of the appeal, which will now take place on either 14 of 15 February 1994. The listing of the hearing date is a judicial matter for the Court of Appeal. Obviously, we shall have to await the outcome before we decide how to proceed.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I must press on with the rest of my speech. I was referring to the need for change—
  Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that I suspect that the Minister, adventitiously, is misleading the House, because the Secretary of State and the chief adjudication officer asked for the postponement?
  Mr. Hague: If I am misleading the House, I am certainly not doing so deliberately, but I am happy to talk about the matter. I gave the hon. Gentleman a straight answer and I shall be happy to discuss it with him on all other occasions.
  Let us return to the Bill and to its purpose. It recognises that any responsible Administration must take action to ensure that they meet commitments and obligations, such as to pay pensions and to pay the benefits that come out of the national insurance fund. It is critical to ensure that enough money goes into that fund to pay those benefits.
  It is important to recognise, when we make the change that we are debating tonight, that we have greatly improved the national insurance system since 1979. We have introduced a 2 per cent. rate that applies under the lower earnings limit for the lower paid. We have made huge reductions in the national insurance contributions paid by employers, which were a tax on jobs in 1979 of 13·5 per cent. The contributions are now 3·6 to 10·2 per cent. and are lowest for the lowest paid.
  Opposition Members are often content to mouth concern about the low-paid, but tax them out of work when they get into power. Has it ever occurred to them that one reason why unemployment is falling, to the utter astonishment of economists and Opposition Members, is that we do not have a tax on jobs to the extent that we had in the 1970s under Labour Governments?
  Let us compare the total level of employees' and employers' national insurance contributions in 1979 and now. Next year, the employers' and employees' contibution for someone earning £250 a week will be £46. What was it in 1979? Opposition Members should know. It was £50. What about the low-paid? For someone on £130 a week, the contribution next year will be £16. The contribution in 1979 was £26. Let us look at the really low-paid. For someone on £70 a week, the contribution next year is £5. In 1979, it was £14. That is how the level of national insurance contributions has changed over that time.
  Opposition Members have failed to face up to the fact that if one does not pay for national insurance benefits by

  1343
  increasing the income of the national insurance fund directly, one must pay it in some other way. That is a truth that they shy away from and do not like to discuss.
  We waited to hear in the speeches of Opposition Front-Bench Members what their proposals were. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to a larger Treasury grant, as though it were a huge pot of money into which hon. Members or Governments could dip their sticky fingers whenever they wanted. The Treasury grant can be increased only if the extra money comes out of other forms of taxation.
  The Opposition have said that they are opposed to an increase in national insurance contributions, but they have set no alternative before the House. They have come here with a sense of grievance and outrage at the measure. The sense of outrage is so strong that when the hon. Member for Garscadden launched his speech, fully 14 of his hon. Friends made the long journey to the Chamber to hear his attack. It was an attack so impressive and dramatic in its content that 10 of his hon. Friends were still here at the end of his remarks. That shows the intensity of the outrage felt by Opposition Members.
  How would the hon. Gentleman fill the gap? Would he raise the money in a different way? Would he abolish the upper earnings limit, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) suggested? Evidently, she did not clear her lines with Opposition Front Benchers, who say that that is no longer appropriate, that they have modernised their policy. They will have to modernise one or two of their Back Benchers if they are to make their argument stick together.
  Would the Opposition pay for it from general taxation? Perhaps they would, but they forget that a large percentage of pensioners pay general taxation. Why should pensioners have to pay for the contributory benefits for which they have paid throughout their working lives? There is a powerful case for having contributory benefits funded by people who pay national insurance contributions.
  Would the Opposition fund the system by closing a loophole? The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to a loophole—the idea put about by the shadow Chancellor that everything, including the funding of the national insurance fund, the general burden of taxation and every crackpot project thought up by Labour Members, can be funded by closing some vast and previously unsuspected loophole that has escaped the attention of everyone else in the nation, and of every Chancellor in recent decades.
  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 [14 December].
  The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 259.

  Division No. 54]

  [8.10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ashby, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  1344

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowis, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickers, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorst, John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth, N)

  Burns, Simon

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butcher, John

  Hague, William

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie(Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  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)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Micheal

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilyam (Cardiff N),

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfshr)

  Dover, Den

  Jopling, Rt hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  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

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  1345

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Malone, Gerald

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mans, Keith

  Soames Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Marlow, Tony

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Sir James (S Worcs)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sumberg, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sweeney, Walter

  Needham, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tredinnick, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trotter, Neville

  Pawsey, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walden, George

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waller, Gary

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ward, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles(Bexhill)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Richards, Rod

  Watts, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Willetts, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilshire, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Tom

  Wood, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Timothy Kikhope and

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Andrew McKay.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A.J.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blair, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Boateng, Paul

  Battle, John

  Boyes, Roland

  1346

  Bradley, Keith

  Hanson, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Heppell, John

  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

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  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

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Lynne(B'ham S O)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd,SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Darling, Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  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'l)

  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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Enright, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Etherington, Bill

  McMaster, Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

  George, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Milburn, Alan

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Miller, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gould, Bryan

  Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mudie, George

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gunnell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  1347

  O'Hara, Edward

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

  Olner, William

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Soley, Clive

  Parry, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Patchett, Terry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stott, Roger

  Pope, Greg

  Straw, Jack

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prescott, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tyler, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wallace, James

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Joan

  Randall, Stuart

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Dr John

  Watson, Mike

  Rendel, David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Clare

  Simpson, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. John Spellar.

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

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order 114 December].
  [Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse in the Chair.]

  Social Security (Contributions) Bill
    Clause 1

      INCREASE IN PRIMARY CLASS 1 CONTRIBUTIONS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      8.25 pm
      Mr. Adam Ingram: It is most unusual to commence the Committee stage of such an important Bill just 15 minutes after it has received its Second Reading. Usually hon. Members are allowed a reasonable number of days to examine and reflect on what the Minister said on Second Reading and to consider the other speeches, although, given some of the contributions from the Government Benches during today's debate, little reflection would be necessary. That opportunity has been denied us tonight, as it was last night in the same way during our proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
      Usually, having considered the debate, there is an opportunity to consider the clauses in great detail and to submit suitable amendments. Sadly, that is not to be because the Government are forcing the Bill through for reasons which were dealt with in detail during the debate on the guillotine motion. I am sure that if I started to go through all those arguments again, Mr. Lofthouse, you would rule me out of order, so I have no intention so to do.
      Because of the procedure imposed by the Government, and to ensure that we continue the debate constructively
      1348
      and build on the many important points raised by the Opposition, we have chosen to have a clause stand part debate immediately. Many crucial matters at the heart of Government taxation policy were raised on Second Reading. As they were not adequately dealt with in the Government responses—certain specific questions were asked, but not answered—this debate gives us a further opportunity to probe those issues and concerns.
      On the surface, clause 1 appears to be fairly innocuous. Anyone who is not versed in the obscure terminology used in drafting Bills could be led to think that the clause does not amount to much. To put the matter in context and so that we can better grasp its content, it is worth reading the clause. Subsection (1) states:
      "In section 8 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (calculation of primary Class 1 contributions), in subsection (2)(b) (by virtue of which the main primary percentage is 9 per cent.) for '9 per cent.' substitute '10 per cent.'."
      Subsection (2) is easier to understand:
      "The above amendment comes into effect on 6 April 1994."
      I thought long and hard about how the clause had come about. I knew what it meant after I had worked my way through the verbiage, but I could not quite work out how a Government who go on and on about being a tax-cutting Government could introduce a Bill, the main clause of which imposes a massive tax increase on the British people. I found that difficult to comprehend. I pondered the matter and I anticipated the possible reason. Then, suddenly, it came to me like a flash of divine inspiration.
      I visualised the Cabinet meeting when all that took place. There they were, sitting round the Cabinet table, each and every one of them a senior Minister of State. The Chancellor was telling them that the Government—riot exactly this Government and not exactly under this Chancellor—had made a terrible mess of the economy during the past 14 years, so something drastic needed to be done. He called for them to speak up if they had any ideas about how to get the Government out of the hole in which they found themselves.
      Up popped the Secretary of State for Social Security —he might even pop up tonight. He said, "Please, Sir, please, Sir. I have an idea. I know what we should do. I have a little list. We should punish the sick, the disabled and the poor and impose new taxes on the working people of Britain. They should pay for the Government's mistakes. Why don't we increase national insurance contributions?"
      That is exactly what the Government did and that is why we have the Bill. The clause, stripped of its legal verbiage, increases employees' national insurance contributions from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent.—coupled with the national insurance contribution increases on the self-employed—and will take an extra £2·26 billion out of the pockets of those workers. That is £360 million more in taxes than if the Government had put 1p on the basic rate of income tax.
      As we would expect from the Government, that increase is designed to hit those on low wages harder than those on top salaries. National insurance contributions apply more to those lower down the pay scale than income tax does. That means that half a million workers too poor to pay income tax will nevertheless pay national insurance contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out on Second Reading, the poor pay more with national insurance increases.

      1349
      Examples of the effect of the increase have already been given, but it is worth doing so again during this clause stand part debate. The 1 per cent. rise in national insurance contributions will mean that a shop assistant earning £6,000 a year will pay an extra 38p a week in contributions, whereas a 1p rise in the basic rate of tax would cost nothing.
      The rise in national insurance contributions will also hit those on middle incomes more than the very rich. A company secretary earning £430 a week—just over £22,000 a year—will pay £3·75 extra in national insurance contributions, which is nearly 1 per cent. of his wage. However, a senior executive earning £220,000 a year will pay exactly the same—£3·75 a week—in extra national insurance contributions, which is less than 0·1 per cent. of his salary. All that is against the assurances given by the Prime Minister when he told the House on 28 January 1992 that he had
      "no plans to raise … the level of national insurance contributions."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
      I wonder why the Prime Minister was not prepared to be more honest with the House and the country on that issue.
      While the Prime Minister was trying to conceal the truth, his Chancellor has been much more honest. A headline in the Daily Mail today says, "Clarke Comes Clean". That, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, is an admission by the Chancellor that the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions is part of the biggest tax hike in our history. It is an admission that what is laid down in clause 1 is part of the—there is a debate about whether it is £9 or £10 so, for argument's sake, I shall say £9—increase in taxes that the average family will have to pay next year and part of the £16 a week increase in taxes the year after.
      The Chancellor may have come clean with the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee yesterday, but we now know that he is playing dirty with the British people. As my hon. Friends have pointed out during the debate, higher national insurance contributions are characteristic of this pay-more-get-less Tory Government.
      This is not the first increase in contributions that the Government have introduced. The standard rate was increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. in the 1980s. What is most striking and most cynical is that those rises were never accompanied by an improvement in the level of national insurance benefits. The recently announced reductions in unemployment benefit are only the latest and most blatant example of that more-for-less policy. Merging unemployment benefit with income support to produce the job seeker's benefit is a cynical ploy wrapped up in a semantic change.
      Cutting the contributory element from 12 to six months will remove 90,000 people from entitlement to any benefit after six months—50,000 men and 40,000 women. Cutting benefits to raise money is the traditional approach of a Tory Government who have created their own fiscal crisis. Beyond that obvious short-termism is a more damaging policy—the destruction of the contributory principle to the national insurance fund. All that is relevant to clause 1.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden earlier demanded that the Secretary of State should tell us whether there is to be a new reduced rate of benefit for unemployed people under 25. I am sure that those young people would
      1350
      like to know. That question was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), but no answer was given.
      Unemployment benefit is paid on a non-means-tested basis because that is how people expect the system to work. They pay into the national insurance fund on the understanding that doing so entitles them to benefits, irrespective of other factors such as age. What matters, or used to matter, is the number of contributions made. That is the basis of a contractual relationship, and it is the basis on which the fund was established.
      In the past, people could expect that paying national insurance contributions would provide for their security in their old age. We know exactly what the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury now think of that principle. What an insulting message has gone out to the British people. On the other hand, they have been told that they must contribute more to the national insurance fund, but on the other, they have been told that they must make their own pension provision because what they will get from the fund will be nugatory. That is what the Chief Secretary has said about future pension provision, following his famous put-down of the "No, not now, not ever" Secretary of State for Social Security.
      The Government have a clear agenda of increasing taxes and reducing benefit. That means reducing unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit and pension entitlement. Research estimates have shown that, if the current approach to pensions uprating had been in place since 1948, today's £56·10 single pension would be worth only £23 a week. I am sure that everyone will agree that no one could live on that. We have heard such a payment described as not worth a bag of nuts. Perhaps that should be rephrased and the payment described as being worth only a bag of nugatories.
      The long march through benefit levels has been accompanied by a systematic programme of making them harder to obtain and the link between contributions and entitlement has been consistently eroded. Receiving partial benefits for partial contributions is almost a thing of the past. The qualification for short-term benefits has been made more difficult while at the same time regulations have increased to cut off the jobless from benefit.
      The Government's approach to the management and financing of the national insurance fund shows a clear contempt for the contributory principle and for the needs of the British people for security against illness, poverty and unemployment and in old age. The national insurance system operates on the basis of the trust and consent of contributors. Clause 1 and the benefit changes that accompany it in the two Budgets this year are an affront to that trust and consent.
      The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the urgent need to address the deficit in the fund. He said:
      "when a deficit of this size emerges in the fund, it is natural to
      look to all contributors to make up the balance."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 179.]
      Last night, we debated the scandalous proposals to cut statutory sick pay. During that debate it became clear that reductions in employers' national insurance contributions were used as a bribe to persuade companies to take their new sick pay obligations lying down.
      In their zeal to cut benefit expenditure, the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chancellor have made it impossible to ask all contributors to make up the deficit.

      1351
      Consequently, the burden of propping up the depleted national insurance fund is being placed on employees on middle and low incomes.
      This debate will allow the Minister to deal with the many issues raised on Second Reading. I am sure that my hon. Friends who contribute to it will pose further questions for him to answer. In the light of the debate that surrounded the Budget, does the Minister think that such a massive tax rise as the one prescribed by the increase in national insurance contributions is justified? Will he let us into a little secret and tell us what alternatives to the national insurance scheme were considered and then rejected by the Cabinet, or must we wait until the next unified Budget before we learn of the next increase in contributions and cuts in benefit?
      On Second Reading, reference was also made to the half a million people who are too poor to pay income tax, but will be expected to pay national insurance contributions. I have said the same during consideration of this clause. Will the Minister confirm that figure, or does he have a different figure to give the House?
      Other questions were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Garscadden and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). Will the Secretary of State confirm whether additional payments for adult dependants will remain, once the contributory job seeker's allowance has been introduced? Will he clarify that the basic rate of job seeker's allowance for those under 25 years of age on income support will not mean a reduced rate of benefit for all unemployed people aged 25? Those questions were asked twice on Second Reading. I appreciate that we are only 15 minutes away from that debate, but I should have thought that the Minister had had time to reflect on them. If his colleague could not answer in his summing up on Second Reading, perhaps we can have the answers in relation to this clause.
      Ms Ann Coffey: I wish to discuss the proposed cuts in invalidity benefit, which is funded out of national insurance contributions. Since early this year, rumours of cuts in that benefit have created fear and uncertainty. I am worried that that fear and uncertainty for people currently receiving invalidity benefit will continue because they will be subject to stricter reviews if they are to continue receiving benefit. Many people who receive that benefit face having it removed.
      The Government's rationale for that is the growth in the number of people receiving invalidity benefit. Indeed, that is their rationale for cutting all benefits—apparently, too many people receiving benefit cost too much. The Budget debate touched on some of the economic reasons why the Government seem unable to discharge their responsibilities as guardians of the welfare state. However, that is not the responsibility of the sick, who seem to have become the Government's new scapegoats, adding to a long list that includes trendy teachers, politically correct social workers, spendthrift councils, soft doctors, and women, particularly single mothers.
      The Independent Policy Studies report shows that 29 per cent. of the growth in invalidity benefit has occurred because people are staying on invalidity benefit rather than taking retirement pension; 16 per cent. has occurred because more women are paying national insurance contributions, which makes them eligible for invalidity benefit; 13 per cent. is due to demographic reasons, in that there are more disabled people; and 42 per cent. is because
      1352
      of a genuine growth in the number of people claiming invalidity benefit among a stable population of disabled people. That is to do partly with new claimants and partly with the fact that people are staying on invalidity benefit longer.
      The Government have deduced that, because of the increase in invalidity claimants at a time when the nation's health is supposed to have improved, the increase must relate to the fact that people are not really sick. Health statistics clearly show that ill health and disability are increasing in areas of poor income. I am worried that those people will be penalised by the new rules for eligibility.
      The Government say that the problem is that GPs are too soft and take undue account of their patients' needs. They will not act effectively to control access to invalidity benefit. I suspect that that is a gross generalisation, as some doctors do assist claimants by providing ample information, and some do not. The Government also say that the benefit is used as an early retirement benefit and point to the number of men over the age of 50 receiving invalidity benefit, which was a deliberate Government policy to encourage people to take invalidity benefit to remove them from the unemployment register.
      That is where the Government are acting extremely immorally. Some people who have taken early retirement receive invalidity benefit and face the possibility of the benefit being removed following a review. They considered that they had entered a contract, part of which was that they were retiring through ill health. Having retired early, they will now find that that benefit will not continue.
      To establish an objective criteria, there is a clear cut-off point. It is difficult to be objective about people's illness because it depends on people's skills and the availability of jobs. It is worrying that certain categories of people who clearly cannot work—for instance, people with mental illness or ME—
      Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend rightly spoke of the Government's contract with people who have retired in terms of what benefits they will receive. Does she agree that part of their contract is national insurance contributions? People believe that they will be eligible for benefit after retirement, in whatever circumstances. Is not that an important part of that argument?
      Ms Coffey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point. Many people will be angry that the Government have reneged on their contracts and put them in difficult personal circumstances. We shall probably see a rerun of the complaints from the public, similar to those about the implementation of the Child Support Act 1991, the effect of which is a consequence of the criteria that were not transparent at the time—
      8.45 pm
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Lady is going rather wide of the clause. The debate is about contributions, not benefits.
      Ms Coffey: I apologise, Mr. Lofthouse. I got carried away by a sudden insight into the comparison with the implementation of the Child Support Act.
      Will the same hard criteria apply to the review of those currently receiving invalidity benefit as to new claimants?

      1353
      The Minister is creating a new class of people that will consist of those who are not fit enough to work, and their position will be exacerbated by employers' obligations to fund sick pay. Yet those people will be unable to receive invalidity benefit. They will be rejected by employers and by the benefit system at a time when employers have choice because of the level of unemployment. Employers are not happy to employ people with any kind of sickness record. That is a serious problem.
      The problem with such a cut in benefit is that it affects dramatically individual families' financial arrangements, about which it is difficult to make gross generalisations. As a reaction to that, we shall see a lot of anger and frustration and many people will feel let down because they have paid national insurance contributions all their lives and regard it as an insurance to protect them against the consequences of illness. Clearly, the Government are reneging on their contract with those people and people will feel betrayed.
      Mr. Nicholas Scott: As the Committee will be aware, clause 1 is the principal clause in the Bill. As the Opposition spokesman acknowledged towards the end of Second Reading, this is essentially a one-clause Bill. Inevitably, therefore, the debate has added several questions to those raised, and in the main answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, on Second Reading.
      The effect of the clause is to increase by 1 per cent. the rate of contributions made by employees who pay the main rate for the benefit.
      The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) made several points about those who will be affected by the proposals. He asked for confirmation of the number of people whom he described as too poor to pay income tax but still liable to pay higher national insurance contributions.
      Any employee whose earnings are below the tax threshold but who is still liable to pay NI contributions will earn entitlement to a whole range of contributory benefits in return for a relatively small contribution. It thus remains an extremely good deal for people affected in this way. Someone earning £65 a week will be entitled to a range of NI contributory benefits for between £1 and £2 a week. That represents good value for the people concerned.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has asked me to apologise to hon. Members for not answering all their points in detail, because the guillotine came down. I understand the concern of those who have discussed the job seeker's allowance. Detailed questions of our policy for this benefit will be open to full debate at the time, but it would be only right to give hon. Members some idea of the answers that are likely to be delivered then.
      We are concerned to ensure by means of the Bill that the national insurance fund can, for the immediate future, meet its expenditure commitments. None of the announced changes for the future will affect the fund for 1994–95, the year with which we are concerned today.
      We were asked whether the job seeker's allowance would be uprated by reference to the retail prices index or to Rossi. The answer is Rossi. We were also asked whether the income support pattern—a lower rate of personal allowance for those under the age of 25—would be reflected in provision for the job seeker's allowance. I can confirm that on present plans it will be reflected in the new
      1354
      allowance. That is only right, since it reflects the lower earnings expectations of people under 25 and the fact that the vast majority of them do not live independently.
      Mr. Dewar: I wish to challenge the Minister, although I recognise that he does not want to be involved in a full-scale debate on this—there will be time for that later. He really should face up to the problem, however. He knows that the income support differential which is apparently to be imported to the new job seeker's allowance is in itself controversial and has given rise to a good deal of bitterness. The Minister and I have personal experience of talking to people under 25 who have said that in some ways their living expenses are higher. There is no reason to suppose that a 24-year-old can live more cheaply than a 26-year-old. There is an arbitrary divide, which is reflected in a substantial differential in benefit. It will cause many people anger and distress to discover that the concept is being imported to the new job seeker's allowance—allegedly as an improvement.
      Mr. Scott: I have certainly taken part in some vigorous debates, inside and outside the House, about the under-25 rate. Wherever one draws the line, it is bound to attract an element of controversy. The underlying principle—that younger people have lower earnings expectations than older people, and are generally less likely to be living independently—is correctly reflected in the provision that we make through the social security system to meet their need. It is therefore right that the principle used in income support should be reflected in the arrangements that we make for the job seeker's allowance.
      Mr. Dewar: It is fundamentally misconceived to defend the idea in terms of lower expectations of earnings. The real test is living expenses. There is no reason to suppose that they are lower at 24 than at 25. That is the wrong starting point. Understandably, having started from the wrong place, the right hon. Gentleman has ended in the wrong place.
      Mr. Scott: Within the social security system there is always a need to look at patterns of expenditure, and we take them into account as we make our judgments about levels of benefit.
      There is another important aspect to the system as well —providing, to the greatest extent possible, incentives for people to get back into employment. If expectations of earnings are lower for one group than for an older group, yet the benefits paid tend to close the gap and thus reduce the incentive to get back into work, that is a negative aspect of the pattern of provision.
      Mr. Terry Rooney: Will the Minister cast his mind back to the time when the contributions rate was much lower and when there was an earnings-related element in unemployment benefit? Surely it is much fairer to have a standard flat rate entitlement, and different earnings expectations can be reflected in the additional premium incorporated as an earnings-related element.
      Mr. Scott: We could argue this matter at great length and no doubt will do so when the new allowance is introduced. There will be ample opportunity then to conduct the discussion in the House. Whether I will still be

      1355
      a Social Security Minister then is a matter for debate, but if experience is anything to go by, I look forward to taking part in the discussions.
      It is worth drawing attention to another aspect of the job seeker's allowance—what is known as the hours-allowed-for-partners rule. At the moment, the partner of someone in receipt of benefit may work for 16 hours a week without that being taken into account for purposes of entitlement to benefit. As the House knows, we plan to increase that, from 16 to 24 hours, for the job seeker's allowance.
      Mr. Dewar: Our other query was about the dependant's allowance. The Minister is being very helpful so far.
      Mr. Scott: A couple's allowance is planned, but not a dependent's allowance, in the sense to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
      I should like to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey). These matters will be subject to acute parliamentary scrutiny, I have no doubt, when we introduce the incapacity benefit, and the House will turn its mind to the subject when we return from our well-earned Christmas break. I do not want to go into that in detail, except to say that it is right that we should seek to return to a provision for incapacity for work due to disablement or sickness to the principle for which that was first established: that one must be incapable of work if one is to receive compensation. There are other benefits, through unemployment benefit and eventually through the job seeker's allowance, for those who are capable of work but who are unable to get work. Where incapacity manifestly is due to a medical condition, a separate benefit should be available.
      It is common ground that entry to the benefit has been too slackly controlled in recent years and that that has led to a considerable increase in the case load for the present benefit at a time when the nation has never been healthier. There has been too little control also over the length of time which people have been able to stay on the benefit without a regular check that they are still entitled to it. As we design the new benefit, we will be at pains to see that those two factors, as well as several others, are taken into account to restore the underlying principle. That principle was the original intention of invalidity benefit and it will apply to the new incapacity benefit.
      9. pm
      Mr. Dewar: As people who read these debates usually do so with a malicious intent, I had better challenge the statement that there is "common ground" about the entry to invalidity benefit. The Minister will be familiar with the statistic that 53 per cent. of those who are refused invalidity benefit and who go to appeal succeed. That suggests that the benefit is nothing like the soft touch which Ministers seem to think. I would not want the Minister to get the idea that we concede that ground to him.
      Mr. Scott: I may have overstated the degree, but I believe that there is a considerable common ground. In the first place, entry to the benefit is by general practitioners. They do not find the task of being a gatekeeper to invalidity benefit attractive. They are under all sorts of social and other pressures to sign people on, rather than applying a purely objective medical test.
      We have looked at the appeals procedures and the rules which have applied and developed for invalidity benefit in recent years. We have seen a range of decisions from
      1356
      commissioners and others. Those have had the effect that many aspects of the benefit and the entitlement to benefit, other than those of a strictly medical kind, have been increasingly taken into account.
      Ms Coffey: Does the Minister accept that it is difficult to establish objective medical criteria unless one is determining unfitness to work in terms of a specific disease? That is clearly illogical and absurd and may produce opinions which are less than objective, because, although someone may be suffering from a serious incapacity, it does not make them unfit for work.
      Intermediate factors, such as tiredness, stress and mental health problems, also may create unfitness. People are concerned because invalidity benefit will in effect have a capping level. Will not the objective test, which does not exist, have little to do with the people who get the benefit, and will it not be determined more by the fact that only so much incapacity benefit can be given each year?
      Mr. Scott: I look forward to discussing those matters in greater detail in the new year, no doubt with the hon. Lady and with others. We do not want to get into Committee stage on this Bill or even to the detail of Second Reading at the moment, but it is our intention to acknowledge that certain conditions would indeed class people on their entitlement to the new benefit. A certain number of conditions will be applied which manifestly render someone incapable of work. In addition, a number of functional tests will be applied and we are consulting widely the medical profession and organisations of and for disabled people -on those tests.
      Some private consultations have taken place and we will soon be taking part in more open consultations. The results of those consultations will be evaluated against a pilot number of real cases to see whether the evaluation and testing process is correct. That will take place in good time for the introduction of the new benefit. At that time, we will have arrived at a system of objective medical criteria which will be acceptable to the medical profession and which will be clearly understood to be fair and reasonable by those applying for the benefit and by the public. If I go on much further on incapacity benefit, I am in danger of anticipating a number of discussions which we will have when we return from our holidays.
      Mr. Dewar: This will be my last intervention on this point, although not necessarily my last on other matters. I am curious about the methodology and the hint given by the Minister about tests which will be carried out on a group. That group would be processed under the new regulations to see whether the Department had got it right. I recognise that it is often difficult to pin down the criteria. To use a parallel, there is an endless argument about the failure rate in examinations where there is a preconceived notion of the number of people who should or should not qualify. I recognise that many hon. Members are shaking their heads, but it is important to establish the facts.
      Mr. Scott: I agree that it is an important point. When we were asked to provide an estimate of the numbers who would become entitled to benefit against those who would not qualify for the new benefit, certain figures were given because we were asked to give some assessment, but it was only the best guess that we could make.
      I assure the House that we have no intention of setting a target or setting the criteria to achieve that target. We

      1357
      shall set out a clear, objective test which will be acceptable to the medical profession and others and will be perceived as fair throughout the country. Those who pass will get the benefit and those who do not pass will not. If more or fewer people fail, we will have to adapt our expectations.
      Mr. Rooney: I am grateful to the Minister for his honesty and openness, although I do not like all the answers that he has given. Can he confirm that the same fiscal effect of a 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contribution rates could have been achieved by raising the upper earnings limit to £30,000 a year?
      Mr. Scott: I do not have the answer in front of me. If the hon. Gentleman says that is the case, it may be true. I cannot vouch for his research and I am not sure what validity it has for the argument we are making.
      I am still very puzzled about Labour party policy. Labour Members make a great deal about the effect of the upper earnings limit as it exists at the moment, but my understanding was that the shadow Chancellor has resiled from the Opposition's position at the last election regarding moving the upper earnings limit, let alone its abolition, which would be totally inappropriate in the light of current circumstances. I do not need to take that point especially seriously.
      I do not want to try the patience of the Committee too much, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. In essence, in clause I we are making the major provisions for the Bill itself.
      I remind the Committee that this is the first increase in the major national insurance contribution rates in 11 years. the two-tier structure for employees which we introduced in 1989 has been more progressive than the system that existed under the previous Government.
      The lowest-paid pay a low percentage of their earnings and get considerable benefits in return. Many people will still pay less than they would have had to do under Labour's single percentage scheme. It is an improvement and I commend the clause to the House.
      Mr. Ingram: The Minister has been helpful and our exchanges have elaborated many points. We drifted on to many different issues. Additional queries that were raised as a consequence of that will be dealt with in subsequent regulations and, possibly, new Bills.
      However, in the light of tonight's debate, I have to ask
      my hon. Friends to join me in voting against the clause.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:
      The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 211.

      Division No. 55]

      [9.10 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bates, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Batiste, Spencer

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Ashby, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Booth, Hartley

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Baldry, Tony

      Bowden, Andrew

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Bowis, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      1358

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bright, Graham

      Hague, William

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butcher, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butler,Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Butterfill, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Horam, John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cash, William

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

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Clappison, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jack, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Congdon, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Conway, Derek

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchman, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Cran, James

      Key, Robert

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

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kirkhope Timothy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knapman, Roger

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Mrs Angela(Erewash)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knight, Greg Derby N)

      Devlin, Tim

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

      Dicks, Terry

      Knox, Sir David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kynoch, George (Kicardine)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dover, Den

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Duncan, Alan

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Legg, Barry

      Dunn, Bob

      Leigh, Edward

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lidington, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Elletson, Harold

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, David(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Jonathan(Brecon)

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Luff, Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Evennett, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Faber, David

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Madel, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forman, Nigel

      Malone, Gerald

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Sir Marcus(Shipley)

      Marlow, Tony

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marshall, John(Hendon S)

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Fry, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gale, Roger

      Mates, Michael

      Gallie, Phil

      Mawhinney, Dr Brain

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Merchant, Piers

      Garnier, Edward

      Milligan, Stephen

      Gill, Christopher

      Mills, Iain

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Goodlad Rt Hon Alastair

      Mitchell, Sir David(Hans NW)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Gorst, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moss, Malcolm

      1359

      Needham, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stephen, Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stewart, Allan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Norris, Steve

      Sykes, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Page, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paice, James

      Thomason, Roy

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Pickles, Eric

      Thurnham, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

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

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tredinnick, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trend, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Richards, Rod

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Riddick, Graham

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Walden, George

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Waller, Gary

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Ward, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Watts, John

      Sackville, Tom

      Wells, Bowen

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Whittingdale, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wilkinson, John

      Sims, Roger

      Willetts, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wood, Timothy

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Yeo, Tim

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Spring, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sproat, Iain

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mr. James Arbuthnot.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cann, Jamie

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ashton, Joe

      Clapham, Michael

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ann

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Cohen, Harry

      Bell, Stuart

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cox, Tom

      Blair, Tony

      Cryer, Bob

      Boyes, Roland

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Burden, Richard

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Byers, Stephen

      Darling, Alistair

      Caborn, Richard

      Davidson, Ian

      Callaghan, Jim

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      1360

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

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

      Mahon, Alice

      Denham, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Dixon, Don

      Maxton, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Meache, Michael

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Meale, Alan

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Milburn, Alan

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Miller, Andrew

      Eastham, Ken

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Enright, Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mudie, George

      Foulkes, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Fraser, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gapes, Mike

      O'Brein, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Garrett, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      George, Bruce

      Olner, William

      Gerrard, Neil

      Parry, Robert

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Patchett, Terry

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Graham, Thomas

      Pike, Peter L.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Pope, Greg

      Gunnell, John

      Powell, Ray(Ogmore)

      Hain, Peter

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hall, Mike

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hanson, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hardy, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      Heppell, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hoey, Kate

      Reid, Dr John

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Rendel, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Robertson, George(Hamilton)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Robinson, Geoffrey,(Co'try NW)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Rooney,Terry

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Simpson, Alan

      Hutton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)

      Ingram, Adam

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

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

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

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Jamieson, David

      Snape, Peter

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Soley, Clive

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Spellar, John

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Stott, Roger

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Keen, Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Tyler, Paul

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wallace, James

      Leighton, Ron

      Walley, Joan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Wardell, Gareth(Gower)

      Lewis, Terry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Litherland, Robert

      Watson, Mike

      Livingstone, Ken

      Welsh, Andrew

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Loyden, Eddie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      McAllion, John

      Winnick, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wise, Audrey

      Macdonald, Calum

      Wray, Jimmy

      McKelvey, William

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Young, David(Bolton SE)

      McLeish, Henry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McNamara, Kevin

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      McWilliam, John

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle

      Madden, Max

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

    Clause 2

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ALLOCATION
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
      This matter has been discussed at various times during the past few days. I almost said "a few weeks", because it seemed like that at times. It is worth having another quick look at the matter if only to settle fears and establish fact. After all, that is one of the classic purposes and aims of the Committee.
      Perhaps this is a plea in irritation rather than mitigation but I was one of the gallant band of brothers which was here at 3 o'clock this morning, together with the Government Whip. He is wearing an exciting tie but I suspect that he will be feeling slightly jaded if, like me, he survived through the long passage of arms over the Ways and Means resolution.
      I appear in a somewhat unlikely but not uncharacteristic guise because I suspect that I am on the Government's side in this matter. [Interruption.] It is a matter of some interest because during my time here—it will be 20 years in about two months—I have been engaged in debate, argument and sometimes a spasm panic over retrospective legislation. There are occasions when those who are debating such subjects do not entirely understand the nature of the beast. I include myself because I have no false modesty about these matters.
      Earlier, the Minister referred to the retrospective principle and the impact of clause 2. Of course, subsection (3) concentrates on that aspect. My amendment, which I unashamedly say is a probing amendment, also relates to it.
      I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is here, because if he read in cold blood what I am about to say, he might imagine that it amounted to a criticism of his performance last night. That is not my intention. I think that my hon. Friend's display was spirited. As I moved through the Lobby just before 3 am I heard it described by a senior Conservative as a bravura performance. I have some sympathy with that view.
      I am not sure that my hon. Friend's contribution was entirely in touch with the realities of the situation. We were greatly entertained—I hope that my hon. Friend does not object to that term—by the speculations about where that £4·6 billion had disappeared from. It certainly appeared as though a great disappearing act had been performed, because that £4·6 billion had disappeared from the books and was about to be recovered by some form of additional taxation heaped upon today's generation to pay for the mistakes of the past.
      At other times in the debate we were led to believe that it was treasure trove, which might still be buried at the back of a filing cabinet at Richmond house. We listened to some splendid arcane arguments about how that money could be distributed for the greater good of humanity, in particular the people of Bradford, South.
      I look forward to the rational, tidy explanation from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, because he always displays such characteristics on such small, unimportant
      1362
      matters. If I were to take a barrack-room lawyer's view of the matter—on occasions I have been unfairly accused of such behaviour—
      Mr. Giles Radice: No, never.
      Mr. Dewar: Right on cue. Thank you.
      It is possible to argue for the purpose of the debate that retrospective legislation concerns a rather more serious issue than that suggested last night. It is not designed just to put right a slip of the draftsman, which provided an unlikely legal basis for the proper conduct of affairs and which was not challenged. Retrospective legislation, of its nature, introduces a legal provision that is intended to relieve someone for acts which were clearly not proper and which might even have been outwith the law or ultra vires the capacity of the person concerned. Perhaps even more worryingly, retrospective legislation may replace money that has been misappropriated, misspent or otherwise wasted.
      That did not happen in this case and that is why I think that the amazing and cheerful chase that took place in the small hours of this morning, in which some effective points were raised about the general conduct of the Government's business and their policy on the health service, may have been marginally wide of the mark.
      I say that with considerable hesitation and I am aware of the fact that I may give unintentional offence. That should not be so because the debate was a useful exercise. It achieved almost all the aims that my hon. Friends for Bradford, South and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), as well as that small group of frondeurs and skirmishers who joined them, had in mind when they set out on the exercise.
      My impression—I am sure that the Minister will rise to confirm, deny or explain it—is that there was a unanimity of view about how the formula governing the money which is collected in the national insurance contributions kitty should have operated. That formula resulted in an annual allocation to the national health service.
      I know that I should have the relevant figures in the back of my mind. I feel guilty about setting out on the debate without having done the necessary in-depth research. If I remember rightly, only about 14 per cent. of NHS expenditure comes from the national insurance fund, the rest comes from general taxation. It is rather like the poll tax, if you will allow me one sentence on it, Mr. Lofthouse, and the figures that expressed it as a percentage of total local government expenditure. It was always a remarkably small percentage, at between 11 and 12 per cent., because the rest of the money, certainly in England, was provided through, I believe, the standard spending assessment. We have a different system north of the border and my hesitation about that term is due to the fact that I am a little rusty on the exact terminology.
      9.30 pm
      As I understand it, the 14 per cent. over the years has been properly allocated. I use the words in a lay sense, as everyone thought that it should have been allocated and no one would have thought that anything untoward would have happened if it had not been found out in some recess of Richmond house by some fiendishly ingenious draftsman. Perhaps it was the personal work of the Minister. Perhaps he will tell us? Perhaps, as the new broom at Richmond house, who has his own form of careful craftsmanship, he came across the fault. The Minister can explain that.

      1363
      Anyway, someone found that ambiguity, as the Minister of State referred to it, which may at some future date have allowed someone of a malevolent disposition to challenge the propriety of the legal basis on which the acceptably proper allocation took place. The Minister was only making clear that that ambiguity cannot be traded on at some future date and cannot cause upset or disorder in the affairs of the national health service. That is not retrospective in the full sense of the word or retrospective in the sense in which we would normally want to look, to use a fine Scottish word, sidyways at the provision.
      Therefore, tentatively at this stage, I am not mindful to force the matter to a Division or to unnecessarily prolong the debate, but I am prepared to listen to other hon. Members speak on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South may want to argue the toss.
      Mr. Cryer: I am looking forward to what the Minister will say, because, although he was subjected to a number of extensive questions last night, the Government Whip intervened and prevented the Minister from replying.
      Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to hear that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At that stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was just warming up nicely and in his 56th minute and, in my untutored view—I do not want to challenge the Chair—he was in order for at least 90 seconds of that time. Under those circumstances, someone was thoughtless and unkind enough to move a closure motion and we heard no more. However, that deprived us of the scholarly and textual analysis of the clause that I am sure that the Minister would have provided.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South is, on occasions, a much misunderstood man. He is showing typical common sense in saying that he should not rush in to pick a fight or to argue the toss on that matter until he has heard the official explanation. I am sure that I have interpreted it correctly and that my hon. Friend's stance implies that if he is not satisfied with the Minister's reply, he can return to the issue with renewed force and authority, having inspected the wares that the Minister is about to lay before the Committee. It is common sense and my hon. Friend's attitude is admirable. It would ill become me to stand between the Committee and what the Minister has to say because, if the Minister's comments are useful to my hon. Friend, almost certainly, they will be useful to me.
      On that basis of friendliness and the kind of constructive spirit in which Committees of the whole House ought to be conducted, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. Hague: I am delighted to have an opportunity to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and by their colleagues during the unfinished debate on the Ways and Means motion last night. Much alarm was expressed about the matter in our earlier debate. The hypothesis advanced by the hon. Member for Garscadden about what has happened was much nearer to the truth than was some of the alarm expressed last night.
      I stress at the outset that no money has been borrowed and that nobody has been ripped off, as was suggested last night. No money has been lost, and no money has been spent that has not been accounted for properly. No money has been spent in any way other than the way in which
      1364
      Parliament intended it to be spent. No money has been misplaced. There is no scandal of the kind about which some hon. Members wondered.
      In answer to one of the first questions asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, South last night, there is no retrospective charge on anyone who pays into the national insurance fund. The provision has no implications for the payments that people have made or will make. It makes no difference to any individual; it is simply a matter of ensuring that the legal cover for payments made out of the national insurance fund to the national health service is correct and in order for the future and for the past few years.
      Clause 2 deals with the ambiguity, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People accurately described it, that has been uncovered in the amending provisions of the Social Security Act 1989 concerning the allocation paid out of national insurance contributions to the national health service. As the Committee knows, the allocation to the national health service is a long-standing provision. The hon. Member for Garscadden was approximately correct in his thoughts about the percentage of national health service funding that is paid for through this route.
      Many people traditionally associate treatment under the health service with having paid contributions, even though treatment is in no way dependent on a contribution condition. The 1989 Act altered the structure of national insurance contributions for employees, which is what led to the mistake in the first place. The Act introduced for the first time the concept of an initial percentage and a main percentage. The former would apply to earnings up to the lower earnings limit, and the latter to earnings above that level. I think that I am carrying the Committee with me so far.
      Before the 1989 Act, there was a single percentage of 5 per cent., 7 per cent. or 9 per cent. applicable to each level of earnings, and the NHS allocation was a set proportion of that percentage. However, with the 1989 Act, the initial percentage became just 2 per cent.
      It was generally agreed in the House and elsewhere that, because the figure was so low, the national health service allocation should apply only to the higher range of earnings on which contributions were paid—that is, between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit— [Interruption.] There is a bit of disruption by my colleagues from the Whips Office. Typically, that rate was 9 per cent.
      I am sure that we can all see what the logic was at the time, and I am sure that we continue to agree with it. Given that the allocation to the national health service was 1·05 per cent.—more than half the value of the 2 per cent. initial rate—there was little point in dividing the 2 per cent. in that way. It was believed that contributions to the national health service would instead come out of the payments between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit.
      The amendment to the previous legislation by the 1989 Act sought to achieve that intention, but it did so by distinguishing the contributions on which the allocation was payable by referring to them as contributions paid at the main primary percentage rate.
      I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Garscadden. It was a diligent official, rather than the new ministerial broom at Richmond house, who first recognised that, because the statutory definition of the main primary

      1365
      percentage rate was in terms of contributions payable at 9 per cent.—10 per cent. from next April as a consequence of the Bill—it was possible to construe the legislation so that an allocation to the health service was not payable where the main contributions were at a rate that was a variation of the 9 per cent. rate. For example, people in their firm's occupational pension scheme pay the lower contracted-out rate of contributions, which is currently 7·2 per cent., or will be 8·2 per cent.
      There is ambiguity about whether those contributions, which, of course, are quite a large part of the total, were properly covered by the 1989 Act. Clearly, that would be quite contrary to the long-standing tradition of the health service allocation, and contrary to what the Government and Parliament intended. It could not possibly have been intended at the time. That is why the simple amendment before the Committee aims to place the matter beyond doubt with retrospective effect.
      As I mentioned on Second Reading, I share the scepticism and reluctance to which hon. Members have referred about retrospective legislation, but here we have an instance of not trying to change the policy's intention. We are not trying to change anything that has been done over the intervening years. We are removing any ambiguity about the legal cover, so that payments can be —and have been—properly made out of the national insurance fund to the NHS.
      I hope that that is a relatively clear explanation, and that it answers the points that hon. Members have raised. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Garscadden will feel free not to press his amendment.
      Mr. Cryer: It is worth commenting that the explanation from the Minister is perfectly understandable, but it demonstrates the dangers that face the House when we hand over to Ministers the powers to make delegated legislation. By a quirk, the requirement for this change is by primary legislation. There are some parts of delegated legislation that are not subject to any further parliamentary procedure. Over the years, this quite significant error was not detected when the legislation went through its Committee stage, or at Second or Third reading. Now that the Government have come to amend it, the faulty interpretation has been discovered.
      It behoves us all to ensure that legislation is examined as scrupulously and tightly as possible. It is a reflection on the Government that they are putting this Bill through the House rapidly, and other bits of legislation from time to time under a guillotine. It has not happened on this occasion, but there is always the danger that, if legislation is examined under pressure and in haste, that sort of dangerous fault can develop.
      Although in this case there has been no question, one of the difficulties—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a point about Second Reading. He should be speaking directly to the specific amendment.
      Mr. Cryer: I am just coming to that, Mr. Morris.
      There is a danger that, if we do not table amendments that are sympathetically treated by the Government, such as the amendment before us, they will push legislation through and incorporate the sort of errors that have been
      1366
      discovered on this occasion. It is a lesson for us all that we must be as zealous as we can in ensuring that legislation is as clear and free from interpretation, particularly where, unlike this, challenge can be made through the courts, because, if legislation goes from this place that is open to challenge in the courts, it means that we have all failed.
      Mr. Dewar: I take seriously your strictures about wandering, Mr. Morris. It might help you if I said—I can speak only for myself—that I do not intend to delay the Committee on clause stand part. The debate on the proposed removal of subsection 3 will allow me to say all I want to say on the matter.
      I am disappointed that the Minister did not find the error himself. I have watched him for only a short period, but he always strikes me as keen. When I was a boy, I was a great enthusiast of the novels of P. G. Wodehouse, in which there was a character called "the Efficient Baxter". He was an extraordinarily diligent secretarial figure, who went around making a perfect pest of himself by discovering things and pointing out the errors of other people's ways. The Efficient Baxter had rimless spectacles that gleamed even when the sun was not shining.
      The Under-Secretary has not got that way yet, although his forehead is not a bad substitute. I hoped that he would have performed an Efficient Baxter-like task and discovered a lacuna in the legislative cover for the activities of his Department that had gone undetected for a long time. We must live with that disappointment, and I am prepared to do so, but I hope that the Minister does better next time.
      9.45 pm
      I followed most of what the Minister said, and I am prepared to accept his explanation. This is a highly technical subject. In my early days in the job, I used to sit and listen to people talking about LELs and UELs, using all the jargon and shorthand of the national insurance contribution world. It took me a long time to understand what all that meant. For a while, I thought that they were referring to American colleges or football teams. It was only after a while that the truth dawned.
      The Minister has allayed my reasonable fears, and perhaps even my unreasonable fears, and it may be only that the de minimis rule has gone slightly wrong. I am happy that is should be put right in this way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer has done us a service. I hope that he will not be hurt when I say that there are occasions, coming late through the corridors when I have heard Members, usually Conservative Members, saying uncharitable things about my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"] I am afraid that it is true. It is usually because he has had the courage and tenacity to stand up to speak in a debate on a Ways and Means resolution or a money resolution, to ventilate something that has caught his fancy and his attention. He is not normally closely associated with me in Labour party terms.
      The Chairman: Order. I have great difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to amendment No. 4, but perhaps it will become clear.
      Mr. Dewar: I am happy to say that it may not become clearer, because it is about to stop. I was, in passing, making the point that an outsider would say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and I illustrate the

      1367
      rich diversity of opinion that co-exists happily within the Labour party. I admire his work as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, and he is right—even comparatively technical matters such as this should be properly challenged and scrutinised. I know that, in dark and secret places, he spends hours carrying out that task, and we are grateful for that.
      Although we have discovered nothing of great moment in this exercise, it is right that the Minister should be forced to explain matters and, where we see the appearance of a retrospective provision, due explanation should be given. In this case, due explanation has been given. I rest content and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister say something about the clause? The week has been dominated by Irish affairs of one sort or another, and we have here the corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. I should like to know how the machinery will work. 1 say that rather apologetically, because I understand that there is a different system over there—one that reflects the tensions, difficulties, frustrations and worries of the political and physical situation there.
      I recognise, for example, that many statutory foundations must be laid here which do not have to be laid for Northern Ireland affairs. Obviously, the Order in Council is the instrument that governs in this matter. It would be interesting for the Committee if the Minister could explain just for a minute—I do not invite a learned paper on this—how this will operate in Northern Ireland, what the safeguards are and what the legislative foundation is on which the officials will work in gathering and administering this particular increase in national insurance contributions.
      You may remember, Mr. Morris, because you may have been in the Chamber for at least part of these proceedings, that there was no need for a money resolution for Northern Ireland. I asked what happened in Northern Ireland and was told, slightly dismissively, that such a resolution was not necessary. Now is the chance to discover why and how the difference exists and operates.
      Mr. Hague: I can give a brief explanation which will set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest and clarify the matter.
      Clause 4 provides that a corresponding Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 will be subject to the negative rather than the positive resolution procedure. Hon. Members who take an interest in Northern Ireland legislation will be familiar with this provision. It simply gives advance warning in the Bill that corresponding provisions will be anacted in Northern Ireland.
      It is designed to ensure immediate parity for people there with the arrangements that will apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. The purpose of the clause is to make it clear to Northern Ireland Members that they can take part
      1368
      in the debate on the Bill's substantive provisions in the knowledge that any change made to its substance will be made later in parallel Northern Ireland legislation.
      It is worth noting that clause 4 does not apply to clause 3, as clause 3 deals specifically with amendments to the corresponding legislation for the Province. Clause 4 applies to the rest of the Bill, which does not deal specifically with Northern Ireland. I hope that that has clarified the matter for the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Dewar: We are privileged. Not only has the junior Minister mastered his brief on this, but we have present the Minister of State who is long conversant with Irish affairs and no doubt can help us out.
      As I understand the Minister's explanation, he is saying that this is a trigger. It flags up to any Irish Member that he can wholeheartedly take part in our debates, knowing that there will be some form of legislation put in place by Order in Council. I presume that that procedure does not involve the elected representatives directly or any form of debate or discussion, at least in the public forum. Therefore, Northern Ireland Members can come along and share in the excitement of our deliberations in the certain knowledge that what is decided will then be reflected.
      I do not know what the Council of the Order in Council is. I presume that it is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—one Privy Councillor, rather than Privy Councillors, which is one what usually thinks of. I presume that it is not a body with a set membership that meets round a great table like the great Council of the North in the 15th century, sending riders out in all directions with the glad tidings of what the great men had decided. In any event, I think that I understand the point.
      One subsidiary question is of interest. At one point I set out to draft a series of amendments—they may be on the amendment paper—which were intended to turn this from a negative to an affirmative procedure. It was pointed out to me by various people who are much more expert than I that that was not necessary, because I was merely returning the law to the state in which it was. Therefore, the whole matter was redundant. But is there some sort of change in the procedure in Northern Ireland that reflects short-term problems and which means that certain matters do not apply? Is the negative procedure a result of that? I did not quite follow that point. I know that the Minister will have followed my halting attempts at an explanation and will be able to come up with a clear exposition of the situation, to which I look forward.
      Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman is correct and we are now at one in our interpretation of the clause. It is a good description to say that the clause is a flagging-up for Northern Ireland Members. It means that they can participate in deliberations on the matter knowing that it will be reflected in Northern Ireland legislation, despite the fact that most of the rest of the Bill does not specificially refer to Northern Ireland. I am not aware of any special circumstances that have led to any change in procedure, but if there are any I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and make that clear.
      Mr. Dewar: I do not want to turn this into a dialogue. That seems inappropriate in the Chamber. One would feel more at home in Standing Committee in such an exchange.
      Clause 4 says:
      "An Order in Council … which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of section 1 or 2 of this Act—

      1369

      (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule … but

      (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.

      I presume that that means that if we were not specifically excluding paragraph 1(4) and (5) of the schedule, which the rubric in brackets helpfully tells us is an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Order in Council would be subject to an affirmative resolution. Therefore, the fact that we are taking that out must be for some special purpose and reason. In other words, in making the Order in Council subject to a negative resolution, we are upsetting the norm. We are rebutting the presumption of what would normally happen in terms of paragraph 1(4) and (5) of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. What I am trying to get at is why we are upsetting the norm here.
      It is as clear as the nose on my face that the Order in Council would usually be subject to an affirmative resolution. We are rebutting that and making it subject to a negative resolution, and the simple question is why.
      Mr. Hague: The best way to explain this to the hon. Gentleman is to say that there is no benefit in making the Order in Council subject to affirmative resolution. Doing so would provide a separate opportunity for Members of Parliament to debate the application of the changes to Northern Ireland, but all those changes can be debated during the passage of the Bill.
      Therefore, although it would provide an opportunity for an additional debate as it specifically relates to Northern Ireland, using the negative resolution procedure is perfectly in order on this occasion because Northern Ireland Members have had the opportunity to participate in this debate. As it happens, they are not here and have not participated, but had they wished to do so, they could have used this opportunity rather than the opportunity that would have been given by the passage of an affirmative resolution through the House.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Listeners to the exchanges might have been foxed. Does the Minister agree that, in effect, he is denying Northern Ireland Members the opportunity to debate the matter on an affirmative resolution? If I am wrong, please tell me. In respect of legislation for Yorkshire, it would be perfectly possible, would it not, for the hon. Gentleman or any other Member from Yorkshire to participate on the Bill, but if there was no opportunity to participate on an affirmative resolution when it applied to Yorkshire, they would be denied the opportunity?
      Mr. Hague: They would be denied the opportunity of participating in a debate on an affirmative resolution, but not denied the opportunity of participating in debates during the passage of the Bill. Therefore, Northern Ireland Members will have had the same opportunity as all hon. Members to participate in the debate. As it happens, they have chosen not to do so but the same legislation applies to them. The effect of the Bill is the same for them as for the rest of the United Kingdom and the effect of this part of the clause is merely that the debate is concentrated on the passage of the Bill, rather than requiring further affirmative resolutions, confirming what we would have dealt with already during the Bill's passage.
      Mr. Dewar: I think that I should bale out of this discussion while the going is good. I may be tempted to tell the Minister that there is an obvious follow-up question, to which he will already have turned his mind. If he is saying that there is no point in having an affirmative resolution procedure because, ultimately, the debate is in the Chamber and Northern Ireland Members have a right to participate in it, I cannot understand why the normal powers under schedule 1 to the 1974 Act envisage that there should be an affirmative resolution. We are now upsetting and removing that provision and substituting an unusual set of circumstances—a negative resolution.
      May I put the matter simply? I promise that this is my last effort. In what circumstances would schedule 1 and the affirmative resolution apply and not be withdrawn by the legislative drafting that we are now considering?
      Mr. Hague: The circumstances in which that would not be done would be if there were no risk of the affirmative resolution and passage of the Bill being so separate in time that there was no parity between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Because the measure is designed to take effect in April 1994, the time in which an affirmative resolution could be considered, which would introduce the changes in Northern Ireland at the same time as in the rest of the United Kingdom, would be very limited. To avoid the risk of the measure being implemented at different times in different parts of the same country, the procedure is adopted in this case.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 1

      ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
      "The Secretary of State shall publish on an annual basis a report to Parliament setting out the yield from the increase in primary Class I contributions payable as a consequence of the provisions of section 1 of this Act."-[Mr. Dewar.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We have had a passage of arms over some minor textual matters and the constitutional machinery of another part of the United Kingdom. In sharp contrast, we now move to new clause 1, which is general in its impact and raises some fairly broad issues. I therefore intend to deal with it in a broad way but hope that I shall not stray or test your patience, Mr. Morris.
      I do not intend to rehearse my objections to the main thrust of the Bill or to clause 1. I shall not talk in such detail about our reservations and fears about the substantial increase in taxation represented by the hike from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. However, what has undoubtedly arisen during these exchanges is evidence that there is a good deal of confusion and no meeting of minds either between the Labour party and the Conservative party or between those parties and the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) takes an individual view, as does his party. In some cases it is an impractical view, but it is always interesting.
      On no part of the Bill will there be a more important debate in the period that lies ahead. We need not go into the merits of the new clause, but we can all agree on one matter —that many question marks exist over the traditional way

      1371
      in which we deliver our services and over the proper weight that should be given to the contractual principle between the Government and governed and the extent to which people are buying entitlement when they make national insurance contributions.
      There are people—I am not one of them—who have put big question marks over the whole idea of the contributory principle, suggesting that national insurance should just be a form of taxation, perhaps hypothecated, but still taxation. Others go further and suggest that we get rid—
      Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour party under the late Lord Attlee made a grave error by not funding the scheme when it was brought in? All our problems have stemmed from that. It is an in-and-out scheme, whereas it should have been funded, as others are.
      Mr. Dewar: I understand what the hon. Lady says. I was at a conference recently where a very elderly person told me what Jim Griffiths had told her. About 20 minutes later I lost the thread of the story, but it was some sort of explanation of why the scheme was not funded at that. time. Perhaps in a few years' time the hon. Lady herself will be telling people similar stories.
      In any event, whether or not the scheme should have been funded, it is not funded. I believe that there is some virtue in dealing with the realities of the world in which we live, and I commend that approach to the hon. Lady.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is it not rather odd that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has withheld this crucial piece of information for so long? Perhaps she should have revealed it long ago so that we could have laid the blame at the door of poor old Clem Attlee.
      Mr. Dewar: Well—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My remarks arose precisely out of the observation that the hon. Member for Garscadden was making.
      Mr. Dewar: I must get on. The tragedy is that, although I know Jim Griffiths said something, I do not know what it was. It must therefore remain a mystery.
      My point is that important arguments are developing, some of them so fundamental as to question the whole principle of the contributory system. Perhaps it is apt to point that out in the week in which Sir Peter Barclay retires from his post as chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee. He made a speech not long ago in which he directly suggested scrapping the whole system—the Contributions Agency and the recording of contributions —and treating national insurance as a form of taxation, whereupon we could get on with life.
      There are fundamental difficulties with this approach. I do not endorse it for one second; I just make the point that these major arguments are beginning to develop. Perhaps in a strange way I should pay tribute to some of the more unpleasant theories emerging from the Department of Social Security. They have certainly widened the argument and drawn new people into an area that used to preoccupy specialists alone.
      My impression is that more and more people who are not experts or professionals, and who are not involved
      1372
      directly, are becoming uncomfortably aware of the importance of these arguments and want to know more about them.
      There is a real difficulty with what one might term the dissemination of information. There is also some difficulty about a debate that is often conducted under the guise of calm and rational discussion but which is actually highly polemical. We have to rely a great deal on the Government for much of the information. The word "Government" is reassuring in one way. It suggests impartiality—information provided by pure distillation from theory and from fact. The truth, as we know, is the very opposite. Government information is often highly tendentious; and the Government's approach is often merely presentational.
      At the moment the Government are attempting—wrongly in my view, but I am parti pris in the argument —to suggest that the financial difficulties of the social security and contributory systems are much worse than they are. There are long-term trends which are of concern, and I do not deny that they must be dealt with and catered for in any future plans.
      I will draw the Social Security Advisory Committee into the argument again, because that point was made in its ninth annual report which was published this week. It does not take the view, and nor do I, that we are in such a crisis that we are teetering on the edge of an abyss and that we have to send in the demolition men and the broker's men, or the system will implode or explode.
      Mr. Corbyn: Has my hon. Friend had time to read the pamphlet from the No Turning Back group on the future of the pension system and the welfare state? That pamphlet seems to give the true version of the Government's intentions, which are to reduce consistently the value of the state old-age pension and to boost the private pension industry at the expense of the state scheme. The state scheme inevitably can provide for everybody, whereas private schemes can provide only for those who can afford to pay into them during their working lives.
      Mr. Dewar: I was talking about the Government's information and expressing doubts about some of their presentational factors. To take me then to the No Turning Back group is a little unfair—that is a rather different kettle of fish.
      I agree with my hon. Friend that is a pernicious pamphlet and, if he wants to collect such things, he should read the recent pamphlet from Dr. Madson Pirie. My hon. Friend may consider Dr. Pirie's remarks on private pension schemes and their virtues in the light of recent news from the Securities and Investment Board, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation. However, that is a different issue.
      Mr. Hague indicated assent.
      Mr. Dewar: I see that the Minister agrees with me on that. We want to try to get impartiality into the debate, and a basis of information on which we can conduct the argument. I will not trespass on it at the moment, but new clause 4 tackles the same problem. We are asking the Government to enters lists in a more public sense and to provide information and assistance.
      I will give a brief example which has occurred to me, concerning an issue on which I have written to the Minister. He may have the letter on the desk at moment.

      1373
      There is a complex and difficult argument, as the House knows, about retirement ages and the state retirement scheme. One of the factors which influence that deeply is the demographic factor and the projection of the number of people above the retirement age.
      All hon. Members have their little conglomerations of facts which they can trip out in an argument and which become user-friendly. One of my facts is that, in the year 2030, there will be 14·1 million people over pensionable age in this country. I got that figure from a Government publication and it was an authoritative figure, which was used both in the text and in the graphs. The figure was used for a long time in the consultative document for discussion on the equalisation of the pension age. The Leader of the House will be familiar with the figure.
      Two months ago, I was at a conference that was organised by Legal and General at which the Secretary of State spoke. Rather to my surprise, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly said during his speech that we would have great problems with demographic trends because in the year 2030—the very year to which I have referred—there will be 15·5 million people over retirement age in this country. The statistic appears to be the same, but—I do not want to use a pejorative term and say that it was invented —suddenly almost 1·5 million people were introduced into the argument.
      Clearly that is a major change, and a factor which must be taken into account. I am not being funny about this, and I genuinely do not know why that happened. I can tell the House that I have watched carefully, and 15·5 million is now established in the Government's little group of statistics. The Prime Minister uses that figure constantly, for example, as does the Secretary of State.
      I have written to the Minister and I wait with interest to ask how that had happened, and on what basis the Government suddenly found another 1·5 million pensioners. The hon. Member for Lancaster will appreciate this because she takes a great interest in these matters, and I acknowledge that she is a frequent attender of debates such as these. In 2030, the harmonisation of the pension age at 65 will have taken place, if the Government's plans come to fruition. We would have expected that, because they want to cut the number of people over pensionable age.
      Not only have we an increase of 1·5 million people, but in circumstances which have changed since the original estimate and which one would have expected to have lowered the estimate and not increased it. It is mysterious and interesting; that is why I am interested in impartial reports and bringing some objectivity into the debate and the facts on which it is based.
      Mr. Alistair Darling: Is it not the case that, in crude terms, the Government are trying to soften up opinion to justify cuts in pension provision and other welfare benefits? They are grossly exaggerating the problems that Britain and other countries face. That is why we see such a slapdash and casual acquaintance with the facts.
      Mr. Dewar: I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. It will be widely shared among Opposition Members, but I have no doubt that it will be strongly repudiated by the Government.
      10.15pm
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dewar: In a moment.
      It may depend on whether the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor wins the battle of the Treasury, whether it is a real battle or a presentational exercise. Perhaps it is another aspect of the matter into which I shall not delve.
      The new clauses address the need to establish a proper basis for the discussion.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If there are mysteries here, there must be mysteries in all the other countries in Europe. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the German Government said exactly the same thing in their submission to Mr. Delors—that the pension burden in Germany will be enormous. It is the same in France, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. We are not the only ones who are discovering a demographic time bomb.
      Mr. Dewar: I understand that entirely. The hon. Lady has heard Ministers saying it on many occasions. The term demographic time bomb is, in a sense, hyperbole. If she looks at the facts and figures, she will see that we are infinitely better placed that most western European countries.
      The country in the greatest mess in demographic terms, for historic reasons, is Germany. The position there is extremely serious and Chancellor Kohl has been taking energetic steps to get to grips with it. It is a problem on a different scale from the one that we face in Britain.
      The hon. Lady may be a victim of the hype that I am trying to get over. I suspect she has been listening to Ministers. I do not blame her; it is how Back Benchers operate, but she is over-simplifying the idea that we cannot survive because we have a problem on the same scale as that of Germany.
      I can recommend to the hon. Lady—if she wishes, I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to her—an excellent and substantial piece of research from John Hill of the London School of Economics, which deals with social security expenditure which she will find genuinely interesting. She could then measure it against some of the statements from Government. But I must not argue the case.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as we are spending an increasing amount of money on our national health service and cures are being found which would have been unthinkable even two or three years ago, not only will the number of people living increase, but their quality of life will improve? It means people are not only living on to a much greater age, but they actually enjoy living on to a much greater age.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady is happy. I agree with her entirely.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I shall live to be 100.
      Mr. Dewar: Do not depress me.
      The hon. Lady makes an important point and I agree with her. it is a complicated equation. It is true that we are closing acute beds, sometimes over-enthusiastically, but in some cases for good reasons, as surgery can be carried out in an out-patient department which once would have required extensive in-patient treatment.

      1375
      I remember being in hospital for five weeks for something that my doctors now tell me would be done on an out-patient basis. It is a complicated equation.
      Let me make one more point to the hon. Lady. The interesting document produced by the Government, "The growth in social security: International comparisons", with which some of my hon. Friends will be familiar, contains evidence of the expense and burden that we will have to carry and, as a civilised community, ought to carry. It is also important to remember that, if we take social protection expenditure—that is, the health service and the benefit system put crudely altogether—as a percentage of gross domestic product, in Europe the burden is 26 per cent. and in Britain it is 23 per cent. We are well below the European Union average.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We must be more efficient.
      Mr. Dewar: We may be more efficient, but Ministers often lead us to believe that we are uniquely at risk because of ever-escalating costs, which cannot be controlled and are now running away in a disastrous fashion.
      The contributory principle—the inter-relationship between the national insurance fund, the national health service, the benefits and pensions systems—is a key area. There is a genuine case for an annual report on the kind of increase which has been included in the Bill. If we can receive that kind of impartial information, we will have a better chance—perhaps not a great chance—of a well-informed debate and of reaching the right conclusions at the end of the day, even if we start from a different political point of view.
      There was a time when at least we had common aims and objectives—even though we argued about the way in which they could be achieved. One of the sadnesses of recent years is that we can no longer agree on the aims and objectives and the proper community approach. If we are to have an argument of such far-reaching importance, we deserve to be better served by the Government's statistics.
      Mr. Wicks: I rise with great enthusiasm to support the proposal that we should have an annual report on these very complex matters. The debates on Second Reading and in Committee have shown that we are at something of a crossroads; there are different scenarios about the future of social insurance or some alternative to it.
      I was intrigued by the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) when she sought to blame Lord Attlee for not supporting a funding scheme. Tha allows me to say, with something of an exaggerated flourish, that I knew Clement Attlee. I refer to a short conversation that I had with him when I was a schoolboy. The conversation with the then Lord Attlee, in county hall, London—in the good old days when we had a London county council, a council that my father had the honour of chairing in its final year—went something like this: I said, "Hello, sir." He said, "How are you, young man?" "Fine, sir," I replied. I regret that I did not seize the opportunity, in the middle of this historic dialogue, to say, "What about funding, Lord Attlee?"—but next time I will.
      The serious point is that there are different scenarios about the future of national insurance, or social insurance or some alternative. An annual report would enable us to monitor performance against objectives. It could become as important as the annual reports from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, as it was, and more recently the Social Security Advisory Committee. Many Opposition Members will pay tribute to the work of Sir Peter Barclay, whose tenure as chairman of that committee comes to an end at the end of the month. I have great respect for his work; his reports have helped enormously and have added strength to the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I believe that annual reports could become important state documents.
      One scenario is that we will increasingly see a reduction in the principle of national insurance and a move towards a kind of residual social welfare system. That would come about through a reduction in the value of national insurance benefits, a move from state provision to occupational welfare—we have seen an example of that recently. It would come about also through the privatisation of what were formerly national insurance benefits—we have seen that with private pensions.
      I would have major worries about that. To "residualise" welfare and guard it carefully with a means test is to increase the inequalities in our society—albeit at a time when new language is used to describe state benefits and state provision. Unemployment benefit, for example, has become a "job seeker's allowance". I wonder where it will all end. Perhaps the Government should consider calling the homeless "home owner aspirants", which would be less negative and less politically embarrassing.
      Let me give another example of the linguistics of social policy. I offer this purely as an illustration, not as a prediction. If one day a Government anxious about public expenditure were to propose the introduction of euthanasia for the poor, no such crude and vulgar language would be employed. The measure would be introduced under the acronym EHOP—"early heaven opportunity programme". The language of social policy is certainly becoming more intriguing.
      The Chairman: Order. I am listening attentively to what the hon. Gentleman is saying—
      Mr. Wicks rose—
      The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down for a second? The new clause is entitled "Annual report to Parliament". Whether the language to which the hon. Gentleman refers will form part of that report is not immediately evident from what he has said so far; perhaps clarity will soon prevail.
      Mr. Wicks: Certainly the annual report will be full of language—and, most important, it will help us to enable both public and Parliament to determine the direction in which the national insurance system is going. That is why I support the idea.
      An alternative to the idea of a residual welfare system, in which means-testing increasingly replaces national insurance, is the idea of enabling the annual report to identify other possibilities. Some people say, for instance, that the concept of national insurance is no longer relevant in a modern society. They claim that it is not actuarially sound. It is not funded, they say, so why not come clean and make it part of income tax? The annual report would determine whether the system was moving away from national insurance and towards taxation.
      Mr. Corbyn: How would the report deal with the position of people who were denied invalidity benefit that they could otherwise have received because of the new rules introduced by the Secretary of State? Would it examine the question of the refusal of benefits under a means-testing system?
      Mr. Wicks: I certainly hope that it would. It needs to be independent and objective when assessing the overall impact of such measures.
      Among other things, the report would enable us to establish whether national insurance has a future. I believe that it has, but that we need to reinvent or reconstruct the concept of social or national insurance. The issue was discussed on Second Reading. I think that any new social insurance system would have to establish whether, 50 years after Beveridge, the risks faced by modern society were being addressed. If Beveridge were alive today, although he would recognise many of those risks—for instance, the risk of unemployment, job seeking or whatever the language is—he would also recognise that new risks had developed. The annual report would help us to assess them.
      Many of the growing number of frail elderly people will need not only an income—a pension—but care. That is one of the major forms of social insecurity nowadays. It is a major risk that insurance should help us to tackle. It may be that in a reconstructed national insurance scheme people could be insured against the risk that one day they may need care costing hundreds of pounds a week, perhaps £20,000 or £30,000 a year, in residential accommodation. A modern national insurance scheme would help us to tackle such risks.
      The idea of an annual report to help us to shine a light on the practice and policy of social insurance is a vital part of the Bill. I hope that it will become part of the Bill and that the Committee will accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Flynn: It is a pleasure to speak on this vital new clause. We must look to the report to Parliament as a sort of gatekeeper—to use the word used by the Minister. It should be seen as a moderating influence, someone to guard the gate. My misgiving about the use of that word is that the Spanish word for gatekeeper is portillo. That may be some sort of sign.
      I have attended almost every minute of the debate and I have been slightly distressed to see that the Secretary of State has had trouble keeping his eyes open. Earlier today, I had a conversation with a Treasury Minister who was purchasing mints downstairs. [Interruption.] This is relevant; it will become clear later. I pointed out to the Minister that there was a notice warning customers about an outbreak of some sort of Asiatic plague at the mint factory and that they should not take mints. I worry that he might be sending them to other members of the Government and it may be that the Secretary of State's apparent indisposition—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We have gone far enough with that. We must return to the debate on the new clause.
      Mr. Flynn: There is clearly a deep division between the policies of the Treasury and those of Ministers in the Department of Social Security. It strikes at the heart of the new clause. The report to Parliament should be seen to be at least an attempt to retain parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's destruction of the welfare state.
      The welfare state is not something trivial. It did not happen by accident and was not introduced by just one Parliament. It is the result of the life work of generations of our parents and grandparents. They saw it as a great ideal that society should be organised so as to distribute society's wealth in a way that was fair to everybody. They wanted to ensure that when people reached retirement age they would have about 40 per cent. of their previous salary on which to live out their final days in dignity and relative prosperity. That was the inspiration of Lloyd George and Beveridge and it has had support from all parties until the present day.
      There is one question that the Government must answer. Why is it that between 1944 and 1951, when we still had rationing and great troubles and were a poorer nation than we are today—the same applies to the years 1950 to 1955 when we were in a similar position—the value of the pension was greater in real terms than it is now? Also, why are the Government planning for the real value of the pension to be far less in 40 years—when, by all predictions, we will be richer than we are now—than it is now?
      I intervened earlier because, as an old lag of these debates—I have sat in on every Social Security Bill since 1987—I was distressed by the fact that none of the many knowledgeable Conservative Members with an insight into social security had spoken. We heard at least one speech from a parliamentary private sectretary, who was reading from a brief, but we have not heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for whom I think we all have great respect and whose works I have quoted in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman understands the situation and has blown the gaff on the Government's great con. They have successfully convinced the media and the nation that we cannot afford a welfare state any more, that
      1380
      somehow a terrible disaster has taken place and that we cannot afford a national insurance scheme. I make the distinction between a national insurance scheme and a poor law scheme because one hon. Member referred—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the subject. The debate is about contributions, so he should get back to the clause under discussion.
      Mr. Flynn: Each year the annual report must contain a critical appraisal of whether we have a welfare state or return to a poor law scheme. I suggest that the authors of that report should become the social—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I must insist that the hon. Gentleman return to the clause.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He has never been on it.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The subject of the clause is contributions, so the hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to that subject.
      Mr. Flynn: Contributions are a vital part of the Bill. Earlier, I challenged the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) to tell me how they have changed since 1979. He sought assistance from heaven. Perhaps it is not well known that he is fluent in Icelandic. For all its value, his contribution could well have been delivered in that language. The difference is significant. In 1989, the level of contribution—the precise subject of the clause—was 6·5 per cent. The change to 10 per cent. represents an enormous increase of more than 50 per cent. since then.
      Let us puncture the myth that we cannot afford a welfare state. We do not need to increase contributions by 53 per cent. over 14 years, or even by 40 per cent. or 20 per cent. If we increase them by 15 per cent., in the next century we will be able to afford pensions that are more generous than they are today.
      Who says so? The hon. Member for Havant. Who else? The Social Security Advisory Committee, the organisation that advises the Government, has produced its ninth report and it should be the organisation that produces future reports. The Government have disregarded every other report by that Committee. Throughout my time in Parliament since 1987, I have read all those reports. They are a great guide to parliamentarians on what has happened to the social security system. The advice of the committee that was set up to be objective and independent has been disregarded time after time.
      Judging by their contributions and the policies that they have adopted, the Government are driven not by any considerations of welfare or fairness but by blind ideology. They have used the excuse of demographic change—as the hon. Member for Havant says in his splendid document, "The Age of Entitlement"—not because it is true, because it is not. They have vastly exaggerated.
      We will have problems in the next century because of the baby boomers which will last for about 13 years. After that, the problem will lessen and we will have a society in which we can provide decent pensions. The reasoning behind the Government's policy—the whole nonsense behind this legislation—is the ideology that everything private is wonderful and everything public is nonsense.

      1381
      What are our contributions to the national insurance scheme? We will soon be paying 10 per cent.—the highest this century and in history. What will happen to them? If the contributions go into the national insurance scheme, 95 per cent. will end up as benefits. The alternative is to put the contributions into private insurance schemes. When that is done, 50 per cent. will end up being paid as benefits. The other 50 per cent. will be lost in administration charges, profits for the insurance company and commission. That is the time bomb under the Government. That is what contributions are all about.
      We have a system of national insurance. Beveridge's inspiration was a scheme based on contributions. What he saw, Mr. Lofthouse, was the insurance schemes that your father and mother and my father and mother had—industrial insurance policies. They paid someone to come to the door every week. Beveridge studied those policies. He said that 50 per cent. of the contributions were lost in the scheme's administration charges. He said that the private insurance companies were more interested in selling the schemes and in their profits than in providing value.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting Beveridge. Beveridge wanted the scheme to be run in gradually. He did not want it to come in immediately. I see that the hon. Gentleman has only a silly bit of paper; I have the Beveridge report. The point is that Beveridge wanted the scheme to be run in gradually. I observed earlier that if the scheme had been funded, all the problems that we have inherited and that we shall pass on to our grandchildren would not have occurred.
      Mr. Flynn: The hon. Lady has quoted Beveridge, which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), I regard as night-time reading. Beveridge said that he wanted
      "to ensure that every person fulfilling during his"—
      pardon the sexism—
      working life the obligation of service according to his powers, can claim as of right when he is past work an income adequate enough to maintain him."
      Let me tell the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) what Beveridge also concluded. He published his report in 1942. He thoroughly investigated the life assurance schemes. His conclusion was that the cost of administration consumed half the money paid in by members. He said that the door-to-door insurance—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lancaster wishes to know about Beveridge, she should listen. I am quoting his report. He said that door-to-door insurance served the interests of companies and the sellers of policies to the detriment of those insured. His preferred solution was a state-run scheme for everyone.
      We have a state-run scheme that has been neglected. We are not giving people choice. The Government have very unwisely told people to opt out of the state scheme and go into personal pension schemes. All Conservative Members who have a vested interest and a direct pecuniary interest in personal pensions should not vote on the issue. The Government would lose their majority. The result of this—
      Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to impugn the integrity of Conservative Members during the debate?
      The First Deputy Chairman: It is not the tradition of the House, but it is not uncommon that hon. Members on both sides of the House do it.
      Mr. Flynn: I have noticed in the Register of Members' Interests that 14 per cent. of Opposition Members have pecuniary interests in various bodies. I have none, I assure you, Mr. Lofthouse. Eighty-five per cent. of Conservative Members have pecuniary interests. I do not impugn the honour of Conservative Members, but I suggest that we should adopt the practice in local government whereby someone who declares an interest in a subject does not vote on it. That is an important reform that we should introduce in the House of Commons, especially as 85 per cent. of Conservative Members have pecuniary interests.
      We want a proper annual report to be made by an objective body such as the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Government are not giving choice to the country by offering them personal pensions. They are throwing people to the wolves.
      Mr. John Greenway: For the past hour, I have listened to the debate on this new clause and I have yet to hear one argument in favour of it. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) talked about a record level of national insurance contributions, which will be the consequence of this Bill. We do not need an annual report to tell us that we are spending a record amount on the national health service and social security. If we examine the Bill and the new clauses, it must be blindingly obvious that if we will the end, we must will the means.
      I do not see why we need to spend more money on administration and creating more reports and statistics when we all know the truth. Under this Government, we have spent a 'record amount on the NHS, and we are spending a record amount on the social security budget. All hon. Members have received letters from constituents saying that people are prepared to pay more to fund the national health service. This Bill will enable people to pay more for a better national health service. We do not need this new clause to ensure that that is carried out.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief because the Minister should have an opportunity to speak about this excellent new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) explained why the Government will not support the new clause. It is obvious. If there is an objective annual analysis of what happened to the contributions—what was paid out from them, who did not get them and who was denied them by means testing; and the almost 1 million people who received no benefit whatever despite having paid into the fund during their working lives—the Government will be exposed.
      The Government are perpetrating an enormous con on the people of this country. They are increasing contributions in order to pay less and reduce benefits. All pensioners have been robbed of £18 a week because of the break of the link with earnings in 1980 and the substitution of a cockeyed retail prices index. The Government are being cruel and hypocritical by cutting unemployment benefit, despite the scheme being a contributory one. It is

      1383
      benefit fraud of the highest order. That is what benefit fraud is about. It is not the sort of xenophobic nonsense that the Secretary of State was talking about when he addressed the annual rally of the Conservative party. Of course, to call it a conference would be to suggest that there was a serious discussion going on, which there certainly was not.
      An annual report must show the real cost of the state pension scheme and the contributory system. My hon. Friend explained what happened under the old private insurance schemes which predated the welfare state. We are rapidly moving back to a society in which any spiv can set up a pension company, make a great deal of money from it and possibly go bust. The robbery of Maxwell pensioners has exposed the lack of regulations for pension funds. People who are withdrawing from the state earnings-related pension scheme are a £6 billion drain on the national insurance fund. I believe that such matters must be exposed.
      The Government rely on secrecy. They rely on the Murdoch press to perpetrate the enormous lie and myth that this country cannot afford a universal benefit scheme or a proper welfare state. We can afford it if the political will is there to do it. The Government's changes to the taxation system over the past 15 years have rewarded the rich with £31 billion per year. That is what it is about. The Bill is simply a minor, introductory skirmish into the great row and debate that will take place about the Government's attempt to smash the welfare state in which we believe so strongly and passionately.
      Mr. Hague: This has been a varied debate. You would be angry with me, Mr. Lofthouse, however, if I failed to confine my remarks to the new clause and followed hon. Members down the various alleyways and byways that they have travelled.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) proposed the new clause in the spirit of providing impartial information to the country and Parliament and in the spirit of openness in policy making. I agree with that spirit. It is not a bad idea to have an annual report to Parliament about the national insurance fund. In fact, it is such a good idea that we already do it every February when we lay the re-rating or uprating orders for national insurance contributions. That provides a great deal of information.
      The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish every year an additional report, which would set out the expected income from the contributions paid by employees, in a form that showed separately the income attributable to the proposed increase in the rates of the contributions from 9 to 10 per cent. I see little point in producing such an additional report, which would be confined to one financial impact on the national insurance fund, when the Government Actuary already produces a report, which must be laid with the annual orders that set the rates of contributions and benefits for the coming year. Each year those reports give details of expected contribution income and expected contributory benefit expenditure. They also take into account the effect of any changes that have taken place in the rates or accounts of contributions.
      I do not think that there would be much merit in having an additional report. Hon. Members who have argued for more information should be aware that a quinquennial review of the national insurance fund is—
      Sir Donald Thompson: Every five years.
      Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend has immediately worked out that it is conducted every five years.
      That review contains the Government Actuary's long-term financial estimates, which consider the viability of the contributory scheme up to 60 years hence. Opposition Members have rightly said that they want to take a long-term view of the scheme and that review offers that opportunity.
      It would be wrong to initiate an additional report. I do not believe in creating unnecessary work for civil servants, who would be called on to provide information that is already ascertainable and available from the reports provided by the Government Actuary. I hope that the new clause is either withdrawn, or defeated in a Division.
      Mr. Dewar: I listened with interest, but without much hope, to the Minister. The new clause is a good one and there are powerful arguments for it, despite his best efforts. I am unrepentant about tabling it.
      Mr. Hague: What does the hon. Gentleman think about my point about the quinquennial review?
      Mr. Dewar: I always find that the hon. Gentleman's presentation is excellent. Quinquennial reviews are obviously admirable institutions, but on this occasion it is clear that the quinquennial review about which he is talking in no way meets the eloquent points that have been raised not only by me, but by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and others.
      In the circumstances, I do not see any point in delaying the Committee with a vote.
      Mr. John Greenway: Shame.
      Mr. Dewar: I would have thought that that was a cause for celebration and cheer on the hon. Gentleman's part. Conservative Members should recognise a Christmas present when they are offered one. It seems very uncharitable and unseasonable for Conservative Members to mock in this way.
      On this occasion I will beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
      10.54 pm
      Mr. Bradley: We have had an extremely interesting Committee stage. If any merit has come out of the fact that the Bill has been guillotined—there is only one merit—it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has been able to participate so effectively in the Committee. He has brought great knowledge and a particular humour to our proceedings. We should welcome that as we run up to the end of this part of the Session.
      On Second Reading, we concentrated very much on the consequences of increasing the national insurance contribution by 1 per cent. from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. It is worth repeating yet again what the real consequences of that are. Through the back door, the Government are giving the biggest hike to taxation. The increase will bring

      1385
      in a staggering £2·26 billion in revenue in a full year. If the Government had been honest in the Budget and had raised taxation, they would not have received as much money. They would have received £360 million less than they are getting from this massive imposition of national insurance.
      What has come clearly out of our debates today and yesterday is what the Government failed to tell the British people during the general election campaign. The Conservatives claimed that they were the party of low taxation. All that myth has now been exploded. I do not believe that the British people who, from next April, will on average have to pay £9 or £10 a week extra in total taxation and £16 on average the following year will ever again believe this Government.
      This is the biggest hike in taxation. It is very pleasing that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), is in the Chamber to listen to the description of the effects of his policies. The new Chancellor—I quote from the Daily Mail—admitted the truth to the Treasury Select Committee yesterday:
      "Clarke comes clean. Kenneth Clarke admitted last night that this year's Budget has raised the equivalent of 7p on the basic rate of income tax."
      We know that, in conjunction with the national insurance contribution, people throughout the country will suffer, and suffer and suffer from the consequences of the Government's policies.
      Through our debates, we have also been able to winkle out from the Government some important facts not only about the consequences of the increase in national insurance contribution, but about the effect on people of not being able to draw certain benefits in future. Two issues are worth reinforcing on Third Reading. I welcome our future opportunity to debate in greater detail the new job seeker's allowance. We have found out not only what was clear from the start—that it was about reducing the amount of benefit and about reducing eligibility from 12 months to six months—but, most importantly, that anyone under 25 who receives the new job seeker's allowance will get it at a reduced rate. That is a lower rate of income support. It is also clear that the dependants' addition will be significantly reduced under the new scheme.
      It is a disgrace and scandal that the 3 million officially unemployed people will pay the price, not only through a reduction in the eligibility to benefit to six months, when many of them, through the contributory system, have paid into the fund and believed that they had a right to proper levels of unemployment benefit as a result, but young people up to the age of 25 will have their benefit reduced to income support level. That is a disgrace, and when it is properly understood, there will be a furore and campaigns against what the Government are proposing. The Minister may laugh, but the 3 million unemployed are not laughing. They are suffering from the consequences of the economic mismanagement of the Government.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition spokesman to mislead the House? There are not 3 million unemployed, and he ought to know—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is responsible for his own speech.
      Mr. Bradley: I understand exactly what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is saying. I understand that, over the 14 years of this Tory Government, they have fiddled the figures 19, 20 or 21 times to cover up the real total of over 4 million unemployed—that is, all those eligible to look for work, but ineligible to claim benefit because that right has been taken away from them. We understand what is going on, and we shall fight to protect the interests of those 4 million people.
      You have not only curtailed the right to benefit for unemployed people. We shall look in great detail at the second exposure resulting from the debates in the past couple of days. That is the exposure of the way in which you are going to treat people with an incapacity, people who are sick and those who have disabilities. Not only will their right to a decent level of benefit be curtailed through the draconian measures that you are likely to introduce, but—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit carried away. The Chair is not responsible for anything in this Bill, or any other.
      Mr. Bradley: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had no intention of drawing you into the net of the guilty people who sit on the Treasury Bench, who will significantly reduce the living standards of thousands of disabled people through the imposition of the new assessment of incapacity.
      We know that such people will be caught in a trap, a trap that we exposed in the debate on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill yesterday. Because of the extra burden of having to pay statutory sick pay, employers will look carefully at people's health records. People with health problems will be denied the right to a decent benefit. They will be caught in a trap—too ill to work but not ill enough to receive benefit from this miserly Government. We are determined that, when the Bill dealing with incapacity goes into Committee, we shall look at every line dealing with the way that assessments are done. What you are doing—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Chair is doing nothing. I am only conducting the debate, in accordance with the rules of procedure. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind.
      Mr. Bradley: I apologise. As we enter the Christmas period, we feel even more the ways in which the people whom we represent are being downtrodden. I apologise for getting emotional. We are trying to protect the vulnerable —the people who do not have the income to match that of Tory Members. We are trying to protect them against the ravages of an incompetent Government, who in one day can lose £7 billion. At the same time they try to cut the benefits of the most vulnerable people in society. Such are this Government's priorities.
      The Secretary of State is so appalled and is such a guilty man that he cannot even come to the Chamber to hear the closing speeches on this legislation. Where is he? I think I perhaps know. I suspect that there is an argument going on between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State about the other area that we are determined to protect—the right to a decent level of state retirement pension.

      1387
      The Chief Secretary is not interested in the future needs of people for the state retirement pension. He is looking for it to be continually eroded so that it has no real value in future. He believes that the state should not provide this sum in the 21st century and that everyone should look to the private market for an income in their old age. That is not good enough for us. We shall protect the elderly. We do not accept the arguments put to us and directed clearly by the Chief Secretary. We shall ensure that the millions of elderly people are properly protected by the policies of a Labour party committed to the interests of the elderly.
      Today's debate has given my hon. Friends adequate opportunity to expose the Government's hypocrisy and the way in which they are trying to con the British people into believing that if direct taxation does not increase, somehow national insurance contribution increases are a side issue and do not affect pay packets in the same way. I assure Ministers that on 1 April next year when the public receive their pay slips the Government's con will be exposed.
      At the same time as incomes are ravaged and limited by tax and national insurance impositions, bills will come through doors demanding VAT on fuel. Then the public will look at how mortgage interest tax relief has been eroded; they will look towards future travel and holidays and see that they have to pay tax on that. As their bills come in for home insurance and car insurance, it will be tax, tax, tax.
      That from a party that went into the general election saying that it was the party of low taxation, that it had no plans and no need to raise taxation. Its hoardings argued against the Labour party's tax policies. Yet look what the country is having to suffer as a result cif the mismanagement of the economy by these Ministers and all their guilty colleagues.
      We have failed—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the last two minutes it might be wise for the House to settle down.
      Mr. Hague: To help the hon. Gentleman through the last two minutes, may I suggest that he spends them by informing the House how the Labour party proposes to meet the shortfall in the national insurance fund?
      Mr. Bradley: Is not it incredible that when Britain is faced with the biggest tax hike ever, amounting to £9 a week for the average family this year and £16 next year, the Government can ask only what we would do? The Government are responsible for what is happening. The Minister and all his right hon. and hon. Friends are the guilty men whom we have exposed during the past two days. We may not have won a vote in those two days, but I am assured that we have won the hearts and minds of the British people who know only too well where the guilt lies for the economic consequences.
      It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [14 December]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 256.

      Division No. 56]

      [11.10 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Ancram, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Amess, David

      Ashby, David

      1388

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baldry, Tony

      Forman, Nigel

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bates, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bellingham, Henry

      French, Douglas

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fry, Peter

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gallie, Phil

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Booth, Hartley

      Garnier, Edward

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bowls, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gorst, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hendry, Charles

      Clappison, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Horam, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Congdon, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Couchman, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Hund, Rt Hon Douglas

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

      Jack, Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan, Alan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knapman, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dykes, Hugh

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

      Eggar, Tim

      Knox, Sir David

      Elletson, Harold

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Legg, Barry

      Evennett, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Faber, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      1389

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lidington, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sims, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Luff, Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Maclean, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Madel, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spring, Richard

      Malone, Gerald

      Sproat, Iain

      Mans, Keith

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marland, Paul

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marlow, Tony

      Steen, Anthony

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stephen, Michael

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stern, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stewart, Allan

      Mates, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Sumberg, David

      Merchant, Piers

      Sweeney, Walter

      Milligan, Stephen

      Sykes, John

      Mills, Iain

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thomason, Roy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Needham, Richard

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Trend, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Trotter, Neville

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Paice, James

      Walden, George

      Patnick, Irvine

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Waller, Gary

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Ward, John

      Pawsey, James

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Watts, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Whitney, Ray

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Willetts, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wolfson, Mark

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Sackville, Tom

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Austin-Walker, John

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Ainger, Nick

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Allen, Graham

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bell, Stuart

      Ashton, Joe

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      1390

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Benton, Joe

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Grocott, Bruce

      Betts, Clive

      Gunnell, John

      Blair, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      Blunkett, David

      Hall, Mike

      Boateng, Paul

      Hanson, David

      Boyes, Roland

      Hardy, Peter

      Bradley, Keith

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Henderson, Doug

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

      Heppell, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Burden, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Byers, Stephen

      Hoey, Kate

      Caborn, Richard

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hoyle, Doug

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hugher, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hutton, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clelland, David

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Coffey, Ann

      Jamieson, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Janner, Greville

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jowell, Tessa

      Cox, Tom

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cryer, Bob

      Keen, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davidson, Ian

      Leighton, Ron

      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

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McFall, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McKelvey, William

      Eastham, Ken

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Enright, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Etherington, Bill

      McMaster, Gordon

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fatchett, Derek

      McWilliam, John

      Faulds, Andrew

      Madden, Max

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mahon, Alice

      Fisher, Mark

      Mandelson, Peter

      Flynn, Paul

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      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

      Milburn, Alan

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Miller, Andrew

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Graham, Thomas

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      1391

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Simpson, Alan

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mudie, George

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

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Snape, Peter

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Hara, Edward

      Spearing, Nigel

      Olner, William

      Spellar, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Patchett, Terry

      Stevenson, George

      Pendry, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Pickthall, Colin

      Straw, Jack

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Turner, Dennis

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Prescott, John

      Wallace, James

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Walley, Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wareing, Robert N

      Radice, Giles

      Watson, Mike

      Randall, Stuart

      Welsh, Andrew

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reid, Dr John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wilson, Brian

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Winnick, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Wise, Audrey

      Rooney, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Short, Clare

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      OWN RESOURCES
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9298/93 + COR 1, relating to the Communities' own resources: and endorses the Government's objective of ensuring that the new Own Resources Decision is in accordance with the financing decisions taken by the Edinburgh European Council of 11th and 12th December 1992.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 145.

      Division No. 57]

      [11.24 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Alexander, Richard

      Bates, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amess, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Ancram, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arbuthnot, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Booth, Hartley

      Ashby, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Brazier, Julian

      Baldry, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      1392

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Hayes, Jerry

      Burt, Alistair

      Heald, Oliver

      Butcher, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butler, Peter

      Hendry, Charles

      Butterfill, John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Horam, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Clappison, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jack, Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Congdon, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Conway, Derek

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

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

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Key, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dicks, Terry

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

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knox, Sir David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dover, Den

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan, Alan

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Legg, Barry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Leigh, Edward

      Eggar, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Elletson, Harold

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lord, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Luff, Peter

      Faber, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Maclean, David

      Forman, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Madel, David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Malone, Gerald

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Mans, Keith

      French, Douglas

      Marland, Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gale, Roger

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gallie, Phil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mates, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Garnier, Edward

      Merchant, Piers

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Milligan, Stephen

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Gorst, John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Needham, Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hague, William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      1393

      Norris, Steve

      Steen, Anthony

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Stephen, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Stern, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Stewart, Allan

      Paice, James

      Streeter, Gary

      Patnick, Irvine

      Sumberg, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Sykes, John

      Pawsey, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Pickles, Eric

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Thomason, Roy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Rendel, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Richards, Rod

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

      Riddick, Graham

      Tracey, Richard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Walden, George

      Sackville, Tom

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wallace, James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Ward, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shersby, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sims, Roger

      Watts, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Whitney, Ray

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whittingdale, John

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Yeo, Tim

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spring, Richard

      Sproat, Iain

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mr. Timothy Kirkwood.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Boateng, Paul

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Bradley, Keith

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

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

      Austin-Walker, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cann, Jamie

      Battle, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Betts, Clive

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Blunkett, David

      Coffey, Ann

      1394

      Cohen, Harry

      Martlew, Eric

      Connarty, Michael

      Maxton, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Meale, Alan

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Michael, Alun

      Cox, Tom

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cryer, Bob

      Miller, Andrew

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Darling, Alistair

      Mullin, Chris

      Davidson, Ian

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      O'Hara, Edward

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

      Olner, William

      Dixon, Don

      O'Neill, Martin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Patchett, Terry

      Dowd, Jim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Eastham, Ken

      Pike, Peter L.

      Etherington, Bill

      Pope, Greg

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Flynn, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Gapes, Mike

      Prescott, John

      Garrett, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Quin, Ma Joyce

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Radice, Giles

      Gunnell, John

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hall, Mike

      Reid, Dr John

      Hanson, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Henderson, Doug

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Heppell, John

      Rogers, Allan

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Rooney, Terry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hoey, Kate

      Salmond, Alex

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Simpson, Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

      Illsley, Eric

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Spellar, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Stott, Roger

      Keen, Alan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Leighton, Ron

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Lewis, Terry

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Turner, Dennis

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Walley, Joan

      McAllion, John

      Watson, Mike

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Macdonald, Calum

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McFall, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Worthington, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Mahon, Alice

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mendelson, Peter

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Mr. Derek Enright.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Question accordingly agreed to.

  Television Violence
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  11.34 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate a very important matter—the effect of violence shown on television, films and video on the behaviour of children.
  We all know of the recent tragic case of James Bulger, and I believe that all hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply distressed by it. When I heard reports of the trial and read some of the transcript, and found out that one of the young boys who had committed the murder had been watching a video called "Child's Play 3", I was absolutely horrified. The fact that a child that age was allowed to watch a video with that sort of content is cause for all of us to be gravely concerned.
  It is also cause for grave concern that 181,000 children watched the same film on BSkyB, of whom 42,000 were under the age of nine. I feel strongly that it should not have been broadcast; but I also feel that the children's parents should not have allowed them to watch it. There must be parental responsibility. I cannot say much about the Suzanne Capper trial, except that the alleged perpetrators were apparently chanting the tune from the same film.
  I believe that a royal commission should be set up to discover the causes of violence. I know that the Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi have called for one, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has tabled an early-day motion which was signed by 100 hon. Members, including me. However, we have not managed to bring about the setting up of such a commission.
  I do not believe that a matter such as this is or should be party political. Hon. Members of all parties are deeply concerned about the level of violence in today's society. We must establish why those children committed that crime—and, indeed, why there is so much violence in society nowadays. It is all very well to cite poverty and poor living conditions; although they may contribute to the problem, I genuinely believe that children especially are desensitised by the diet of violence that they are fed by television, films and videos, day after day, as they sit in front of their television sets.
  The majority of parents are very responsible, but many are not. Instead of entertaining their children—taking them out and spending time with them—they much prefer to go to the video shop. Quite often, they do not check the content of the videos that they take out before sitting their children down in front of the television. Those children become more and more used to violence; the more they see, the more they feel that that is the normal way in which to behave. If they cannot get something by means of reason, they will hit out.
  Some say that there is no link between the violence on television and the violence in society—that there is no proof. That is why I believe that more research is needed. The public, however, do believe that there is a link. A recent TV Times survey found that 59 per cent. of viewers thought there was a link between television violence and violence in society, while 85 per cent. felt that television companies were not careful enough about what
  1396
  they screened. Even the Broadcasting Standards Commission said that complaints had trebled in the 12 months before last July.
  I know that television films and videos have changed a great deal in those 12 months, but they changed even more in the years before that. That is one of the main problems. Films, television shows and videos have become more and more realistic. When I was younger I used to watch "Dixon of Dock Green". It was a crime series, but we never saw the violence that we see today. There was not the realism that we see today. The same applied to popular children's programmes such as "Popeye". There was always a moral, Popeye always won through. That may be simplifying matters, but there was a moral and the goodie always won. Today, I do not believe that the goodie does win. We must ensure that we have a certain morality running through television, films and video.
  It is a tribute to the directors, producers, writers and actors that there is more realism today. It is no longer like "Dr. Who" or cowboys and indians. Many people who do not believe that there is a link say, "I grew up with cowboys and indians and it did not harm me." Children do not see cowboys, red indians or daleks in the street every day. That is the difference. What they see on their screens today is something that they know. They see a real person who could be their neighbour, the man down the street or a child who they know, committing acts of violence.
  Many years ago when I worked with children, I asked them about violence and television. I did not ask them whether it had any influence on their behaviour, but I asked them whether they were terrified by violence. Incredibly, they proved the theory. I asked about "Dr. Who". They said, "That is fantasy. I have never met a dalek. I do not have nightmares about that." Most of them had nightmares about real-life drama, things with which they could identify.
  There are many television shows, films and videos that are not as extreme as those watched by the children in the James Bulger case. Some films appear to be totally innocuous. I went to see "Home Alone 2". It was the first film that I had been to see in about a year. I had an evening off and that was the only cinema in which I could get a seat. I went with some friends who have children, one of whom is seven years old. She did not come with us, but I asked her parents later whether they would have let her come to the film. They said, "Yes, of course. What about all the other children there?"
  In the film, a little boy went to the top of a building and started hurling bricks on to the villain. He was knocked out, but got up after 30 seconds. Another brick came down on top of him and he again got up. He then went into a building and was electrocuted. His hair stood on end and he went black all over. He survived everything. We did not see the real effect of the violence.
  Children as young as four and five were watching that film. I do not think that they would have wanted to be violent or that it would necessarily have affected them in a violent way. However, films that do not show the consequences of violence are just as bad. Children will ape what they see on a television screen or in a film. They may go out and think, "I'll throw a brick at another child. It won't harm him. I saw it in a film and the person got up." I am not saying that we should ban such films, but we should ensure that their producers and writers look carefully at the sort of programmes that they are making.

  1397
  Some time ago I watched "Kilroy" because it was specifically about television and violence. There were two prisoners on day release from prison. One of them was asked, "Why did you commit your crime?" He said, "I saw it on Crimewatch. I saw someone go into a building society, steal the money and get away with it and I thought, 'I'm broke and that's an easy way to make money. He was caught. How many people watch those sorts of programmes? I am not saying that we should ban them, but programme makers must be responsible.
  I am very worried about real-life crime and its effect on children as well. Many of them see it, as many programmes now depict and dramatise what has happened in real life. Again, I think that that is a worrying way to go about things.
  There has to be a link between crime and video nasties and all the violence that we see in the media. If there was not a link and people did not feel that television influenced them, why would advertisers spend £1·7 billion a year on advertising their products? They cannot say, on the one hand, that it influences people who watch television and, on the other, that it does not. It either does or it does not.
  We must ask ourselves what we should do about it. As I said, I feel that we need a royal commission to consider why people, especially children, are violent. I would like there to be a new classification, "Not suitable for home entertainment", on videos so that when parents go into shops they know that they cannot show them to their children. I want broadcasters to mark programmes with a "V" for violence. Perhaps that is a step in the right direction. We will not be able to get them to change overnight, but we might be able to persuade them to do so gradually.
  How do we make parents responsible? How do we teach them to teach their children the difference between fact and fiction? We must study that seriously.
  The BBC guidelines already state that a blow to the head must be treated as a serious matter. I want television companies to monitor whether those guidelines are working in practice. I suspect that they are not. They read very well, but from watching some programmes, I do not feel that some companies are following their own guidelines.
  I would like actors, writers, directors and producers, along with politicians, to come together into some form of organisation to try to change the way in which people think and the programmes that are made. Writers could write programmes and plays with a far more positive message and we could get away from the climate of violence.
  I congratulate Sir Anthony Hopkins, who, when asked to make a sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs", refused because he suddenly realised what sort of effect the first film had had on people, and Stanley Kubrik, who abandoned "A Clockwork Orange" because a tramp was beaten up after its first screening.
  People in the profession need to be mobilised and politicians on both sides of the House must mobilise with people in the industry and ensure that we do something to stop the diet of violence.
  If negative images influence people, positive images must, too. We must persuade programme makers to put positive images on our screens. Most importantly, we must all treat the matter seriously. I know that hon. Members in
  1398
  the House tonight do so and that they are here because they know that violence has got totally out of control and that something has to be done. I sincerely hope that we will be able to set up a royal commission.
  11.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) on obtaining this debate and raising this important issue. She is right. As she will know, it is unusual to have more than just a few hon. Members in the House for an Adjournment debate, but she is supported by her hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and I see my hon. Friends the Members for Langaurgh (Mr. Bates, for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) as well. I think that it was quite unique that, as the hon. Lady was talking, all around me I could hear murmurs of, "Yes, I agree with that", "She's absolutely right" and "She has hit the nail on the head" in response to so many of her arguments.
  Of course, the debate has understandably attained particular prominence following the judge's remarks in the case arising from the tragic death of James Bulger. The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale for her work, in association with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and others, in helping to draw attention to the challenge presented to society by the worst violent and pornographic material. In particular this evening, she has drawn attention to the paramount importance of protecting children from harmful influences.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear the Government's great concern about the murder of James Bulger and has expressed the sympathy that the whole House must feel for James's parents. I am sure that the House would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on the birth of their new son, although of course nothing can make up for the son they have lost.
  The murder of a child is always an appalling crime, whatever the circumstances. Nevertheless, it comes as no surprise that the James Bulger case has provoked such great concern, given the involvement of children both as perpetrators and as victim. Thankfully, murder carried out by young children is extremely rare. It may, therefore, be unsafe to draw any wider conclusions from that particular case.
  Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have noted the remarks made by the trial judge, Mr. Justice Morland, who suggested that one explanation for the murder might be exposure to violent videos. We are currently studying these remarks, together with the views of the police officers who investigated the case. We shall also examine the results of current research into the viewing behaviour of juvenile offenders, which has been commissioned jointly by the British Board of Film Classification, the Broadcasting Standards Council, the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. The results of that research are expected to be published in the new year.
  Of course, there has already been extensive research into the possibility of a link between on-screen violence and violent behaviour. Many hon. Members will have seen the reports in the press only yesterday about a new study

  1399
  which suggests that the playing of violent computer games encourages aggression in about one in five of the children who play them.
  The balance of the research undertaken so far has failed to produce satisfactory evidence that a direct causal effect exists between exposure to violent material and the commission of violent crime. There are probably insuperable practical limitations to what it is possible for such research to achieve in investigating the causes of human behaviour.
  None the less, we shall all accept that films, videos, television and computer games are powerful media. Simple common sense tells us that they must have some effect on at least part of their audience. I look at it this way: last year in the United Kingdom, our two commercial terrestrial channels alone generated some £1·7 billion in advertising revenue. Is it likely that advertisers—hard-faced capitalists —would be prepared to spend such vast sums if they did not believe that television could have some influence on people's choices or form their opinions? Of course it does. The Government therefore take the view that all broadcasters, film-makers and video games manufacturers should exercise due caution and assume that there may be some relationship between what they do and the way in which some people behave.
  Following the murder of James Bulger there have been calls for the Government to take tough action to ban video nasties, violent videos and computer games and violence on television. I can well understand the concern that has led to such pressure, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, it would not be right for the Government to rush into snap judgments on the issue, particularly on the question of any wider implications for the criminal law. We need to consider it carefully.
  The Government have considerable sympathy for those who say that there is too much violence in the media and that too often children are exposed to violent films or videos which can turn any child and which we would prefer them not to see.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a fallacy to suppose that we can protect children from watching violent material simply by screening it after 9 pm or any other hour? Does he agree that, whatever we do, if such material is broadcast young children will see it and, therefore, the only answer is to ban it altogether?
  Mr. Maclean: I largely accept that argument. We all know that it is usually only young children who can work the latest video recorders. I do not know whether watching violent films or videos can turn any child or adult into a murderer. But, as I have said, I believe that violent and horrific material must have some effect on a susceptible minority. That is one reason why our controls on videos, films and broadcasting are already among the most stringent in the world.
  I shall briefly describe those controls, but before I do, I shall remind the House that they form only part of a much wider system of regulation over what children watch and how they behave. Of course, I am referring to the exercise of parental responsibility, to which the hon. Lady so rightly and wisely referred. That is a much more effective means of controlling children's behaviour than any system of regulation the Government could hope to establish. There
  1400
  is an obvious need for all of us who are responsible for children to ensure that they are not allowed to see unsuitable material. There is also a clear need for film makers, video producers and broadcasters to think very carefully about their wider responsibilities to society.
  The Government recognise that there is considerable concern about the availability of violent and horrific videos, including video and computer games. The hon. Lady's comments about the difference between fantasy films and reality struck a chord with me and my hon. Friends. We can all watch films, including some of my favourites such as "Star Trek". They are wonderful escapism and I do not think that people realistically put themselves in that position.
  I agree with the hon. Lady that some of the films which might—I say "might" because I do not have research to back this up, and I do not have research to prove I am wrong either—be the most dangerous do not appear to be the most obvious ones. I am referring to "The Termminator" and "Rambo". Those films may seem to be nice family videos, but the hon. Lady correctly said that there is a lot of violence and the baddies continue to gel up and appear completely uninjured. I would love to know the effect of that on the susceptible minority.
  We must all remember that we are not so much worried about the 95 per cent. of people who can watch a violent film or any type of material and not be affected or be depraved or corrupted. The problem is the susceptible minority who might be depraved or corrupted. I digressed slightly because the hon. Lady made a very good point.
  All of us know where we might draw the line on the sort of violent material that we would not like 18-year-olds, 15-year-olds, children or, indeed, other members of our family to see. The difficulty is that if we redraw the line on violence, how do we transcribe that into guidelines or language to give to broadcasters or video producers? That is a difficulty that I am addressing at present.
  Despite those difficulties, our existing system of video censorship and classification is already one of the most rigorous in the world. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, all video works, apart from a small category of innocuous exempt material, must be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification for classificiation. The BBFC is an independent body and Ministers have no power to control or review its classification decisions. Under the Act, it is a criminal offence to supply a video which has not been classified by the BBFC or to supply a video in breach of the age classification awarded. The maximum penalty for supplying an unclassified video is a £20,000 fine, and the maximum penalty for the offence of under-age supply is a £5,000 fine. The hon. Lady suggested that perhaps we could legislate to introduce a new category of films not suitable for viewing in the home, but that would be no different from the present system.
  We already require the BBFC to follow certain guidelines when performing its statutory classification duties. It must take into account the fact that videos are seen in the home and may therefore need to be censored or classified more restrictively than video films because children may replay them and see the one piece of violence repeatedly, which they would not normally do in the cinema. The BBFC must also seek to avoid classifying any work which could be considered obscene or otherwise unlawful.
  When classifying films for video, the BBFC scrutinises every work in its entirety and adopts an active editing

  1401
  policy. It does not simply extend the same classification as was granted for cinema release, and frequently places films in a more restrictive age category, as well as requiring additional cuts of violent or explicit scenes which may be played over and over again in isolation and which are therefore unsuitable for viewing in the home, where access is not as strictly controlled as at a cinema. If the BBFC believes that a particular film is simply not suitable for home viewing in any circumstances, it will refuse video classification altogether.
  We have already taken action to improve the enforcement of the 1984 Act. During the previous Session, we supported a Bill introduced by Lord Birkett—a vice-president of the BBFC—and in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), which extended the time limit for the commencement of prosecutions under the Act. It also streamlined the procedure by which the BBFC may give evidence as to whether a particular video work either has or has not been classified. That Bill came into force on 20 September.
  We will be taking further action under the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill to give local authority trading standards officers stronger powers to enforce the 1984 Act by enabling them to investigate an entire chain of video supplies which is outside their area. The Bill will also contain other provisions designed to strengthen the enforcement of our legal controls on obscene material and child pornography. They will create new police powers of search and seizure; a new power of arrest for obscenity and child pornography offences; increase the maximum penalty for the mere possession of child pornography and extend the law to cover simulated child pornography that is manufactured by computer, where a real child is the basis of the photograph. We will also consider carefully the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is currently inquiring into computer pornography.
  Video and computer games constitute video recordings for the purposes of the 1984 Act, but most games are exempt from the classification requirement under the Act. However, such games forfeit their exemption if they depict, to any significant extent, human sexual activity, the mutilation or torture of or gross violence towards humans or animals, or human genital organs. Games of this nature must be submitted for classification in the usual way. Probably the most famous one is the Sega game, "Night Trap", which has already been classified as "15" because of its use of real actors. As technology advances and the number of video games using realistic footage of real actors increases, the number of games requiring classification and possibly censorship is also likely to
  1402
  increase. In future, I believe that there might be a great expansion in such games as the technology improves. We are keeping a close eye on that sector.
  I acknowledge the work done in a recent survey by Dr. Mark Griffiths and Mr. Nigel Hunt, which suggests that there may also be room for concern about the effects of those games which use what are very clearly computer graphics and which do not resemble real life or real people. This is why I welcome the work which the computer games industry itself, led by companies like Sega, has done under the aegis of the European Leisure Software Publishers Association—ELSPA—to establish an effective code of practice and a voluntary age classification system for those computer games which are exempt from classification as videos.
  We have developed a system of media regulation in the United Kingdom based on arms-length principles and it is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not seek to intervene in matters such as programme content or scheduling. Within this framework, the responsibility for what is broadcast rests with the broadcaster and the broadcasting regulatory bodies, the BBC, the Independent Television Commission, the Welsh Fourth Channel authority and the Radio Authority. They are independent of Government and responsible to Parliament for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting.
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 places a clear framework for the independent broadcasters to follow with regard to broadcasting standards. The Act sets a statutory duty on the ITC to ensure that all its licensed services include nothing in their programmes
  "which offends against good taste and decency, is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder, or to be offensive to public feeling".
  Similar provisions are also contained in the licence and agreement which set the framework for the BBC's operations.
  Our broadcasting regulatory bodies also maintain detailed codes of practice for broadcasters and programme makers. In July this year, the BBC and the ITC issued revised tightened guidelines for their programme producers and purchasers on the portrayal of violence. Those guidelines prohibit the use of gratuitous violence—although we could all argue about what that is. They also require that the consequences of violent acts are not overlooked; that close attention is paid to the scheduling of violent programmes and advice given on the use of clear "on-air" warnings; and that warnings should be given of the dangers of broadcasting material depicting violent behaviour which children might imitate.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes past Twelve midnight.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what formal or informal approaches Her Majesty's Government have received from Governments of nations with utilities with a contract with British Nuclear Fuels plc for the use of THORP, to cancel or vary the contract or its terms; and what steps have been taken to alert other departments.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Dry Cleaning
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research he has commissioned and what grants he has offered for research on future dry cleaning technology from OTEC (MSG) Ltd.; and if he will place the conclusions of that research in the Library.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  OTEC is a subsidiary of Master Services Group—MSG—which leads a project assisted'by a Department of Trade and Industry grant under DEMOS —DTI's environmental management options scheme. The grant fo £134,332 over 13 months is in support of the research and development of a hydrocarbon non-halogenated fluid as a possible replacement for CFC 113, a solvent used in the dry-cleaning industry. Production of CFC 113 is to be phased out by 1 January 1995.

  A summary of the results of the project will be issued in late 1994 for the benefit of the dry cleaning industry, and will be placed in the Librry of the House.

  Solvents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what compliance tests were carried out on European regulations to phase out the use of solvent 113; who conducted these tests; and what alternative solvents or technologies were recommended.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department commissioned consultants Touche Ross to carry out a study into the effect of phase out of CFC 113—solvent 113—in the solvent-using sector. Copies of its report "The use of CFC 113 and 1,1,1 trichloroethane as solvents in UK industry" dated October 1992 were placed in the Library of the House.

  My Department has also produced a free leaflet entitled "Ozone Depleting Solvents. CFC Phase Out: Advice on Alternatives and Guidelines for Users", which is also in the Library of the House, and has supported a nationwide series of seminars organised by the Engineering Employers Federation to advise users on the range of alternatives.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the spending on research and development in each of the last five years given in 1992–93 prices in his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department of Trade and Industry's expenditure on research and development is recorded in the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development", copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. Table 1.2.3. of the latest edition shows DTI expenditure on research and development from 1987–88, based on 1991–92 prices. Revised figures, based on 1992–93 prices, will be published in the 1994 forward look of science and technology, which replaces the annual review.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects BNFL to publish its accounts for 1992–93; and what reasons it has given for the delay.

  Mr. Eggar
  BNFL will file its accounts for 1992–93 within the period allowed by the Companies Act 1985, as amended, for laying and delivering accounts. In accordance with section 244 of the Act, BNFL has claimed and been granted a three-month extension to this period on the ground that it is a company which carries on business or has interests outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The accounts are now due to be delivered to Companies House on or before 31 January 1994.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the average annual running costs of BNFL plants at(a) Capenhurst, (b) Springfields, (c) Chapelcross, (d) Sellafield and (e) Calderhall.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following numbers of press notices were issued by the Department for the years requested.

  Year

  Number of notices

  Department

  1979

  897

  Department of Trade, Department of Industry and Department of Consumer Protection

  1980

  937

  Department of Trade and Department of Industry

  1981

  944

  Department of Trade and Department of Industry

  1982

  1,039

  Department of Trade and Department of Industry

  1983

  956

  Department of Trade, Department of Industryand subsequently, from June 1983, the merged Department of Trade and Industry

  1984

  762

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1985

  839

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1986

  931

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1987

  816

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1988

  944

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1989

  876

  Department of Trade and Industry

  753

  Year

  Number of notices

  Department

  1990

  799

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1991

  724

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1992

  838

  Department of Trade and Industry, including Department of Energy from April

  1993

  745

  Department of Trade and Industry, including Department of Energy from April, up to 14 December

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have been declared bankrupt each year since 1989, including that year.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Information on company insolvencies is regularly published by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, in "Business Briefing", copies are available in the Library of the House. The figures concerned were most recently published in the edition dated 5 November.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  The final outturn for the recurrent costs of running the Department in 1992–93 is £291.2 million. The running costs limit for 1993–94 is £330.6 million. An estimated outturn will be published in the spring in the 1994 departmental report and the unified Budget supplement. The Department's planned running costs expenditure for 1994–95 will be published in the unified Budget supplement.

  Electricity Licences
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to relax the conditions of the order which exempts companies from the requirement to hold an electricity generation or supply licence.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following consultations with the Director General of Electricity Supply, electricity companies and other interested parties, I have decided to amend the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990 to reduce the regulatory burden on small generators, own generators and consumers who sell on a small proportion of the electricity they purchase.

  The changes will be made as early as possible in 1994, I expect the changes to be broadly as follows, subject to considering the detailed technical amendments that will be required to achieve our aims.

  At present, small generators require a generation licence unless each of their generating stations provides not more than 10 MW, disregarding power going to certain qualifying customers on site. I will extend this exemption to cover generating stations which have a capacity of less
  754
  than 100 MW and provide more than 10 MW but not more than 50 MW, disregarding power going to certain qualifying customers on site.

  At present, a consumer without an electricity supply licence may resell electricity to franchise customers if that electricity was originally purchased from the local public electricity supplier or in certain cases a second tier supplier. I propose to extend the exemption to allow the resale of electricity purchased from a second tier supplier to any franchise customers located on the reseller's site —this subject to overall limits based on the proportion and aggregate amount resold; these are expected to be 10 per cent. and 250 MWH per site respectively. I am also minded to exempt the resale of electricity purchased from an own generator subject to the same conditions and limitations.

  The existing exemptions for own generators and deminimis generators allow for the provision of electricity to qualifying groups of companies. I propose to allow more companies to be included in such qualifying groups by reducing the proportion of shares required to be held in a company for it to qualify as a subsidiary forming part of a qualifying group. I am also examining how we might allow certain joint venture companies to be included in a qualifying group. At present, an own generator requires a supply licence unless at least 51 per cent. of the electricity from his generating station goes to qualifying customers located on the own generator's site. I will remove this condition. In future, the proportion of electricity provided to particular customers will not be a factor in determining whether a supply licence is needed.

  At present, most generators who are exempt from the need for a generation licence but who have stations over 200 KW capacity must notify the Secretary of State of their name and address. I will remove that requirement.

  These changes will encourage own generators and others by reducing the regulatory burden with which they must contend.

  In addition, the Director General has granted a full second tier supply licence to Nuclear Electric. This will help to promote competition in the provision of electricity supply contracts to non franchise customers.

  The Government recognise the concern that rises in pool prices have caused, particularly to those large users who are on pool related contracts. The Director General of Electricity Supply has investigated the matter. He has carried forward work on the costs and margins of National Power and PowerGen and other relevant issues and has concluded that further steps need to be taken to ensure that customers are protected in future and to allow the satisfactory development of the industry. Discussions with the companies are continuing and he anticipates being able to decide by mid January whether a Monopolies and Mergers Commission reference is required.

  In their White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", the Government said that they would consider whether allowing large users to trade outside the electricity pool would be beneficial to the electricity market.

  The responses to my Department's consultation paper on dedicated generation established that there were many practical problems to be overcome if a workable dedicated generation scheme were to be found which would not disadvantage other consumers. The Government have concluded that they should not proceed with amendments to the order which would allow an interim scheme to operate within the electricity pool.
  755
  I have, therefore, asked the Director General of Electricity Supply to look further into the possibility of trading outside the pool and to report on this by 30 June 1994. He has agreed.

  European Economic Area
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the European economic area will enter into force.

  Mr. Needham
  Following ratification of the European Economic Area—EEA—agreement by all EC member states and participating states of the European Free Trade Association the Community formally concluded the EEA at the ECOFIN Council on 13 December. This means that the European Economic Area will enter into force on 1 January 1994.

  The European Economic Area agreement extends most of the EC's single market to five states of the European Free Trade Association: Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; Liechtenstein may join later. The United Kingdom ratified the EEA on 15 November 1993.

  Remote Sensing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for a legal national regime in which remote sensing can be accommodated; and what plans he has to develop an international regime in which the interests of have-not technology states can be accommodated.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]I have no plans to add to the provisions of existing legislation including those of the Outer Space Act 1986. United Nations resolution 41/65 of 3 December 1986 creates an international framework within which the International Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, of which the British National Space Centre is a member, is at present exploring mechanisms for the closer involvement of developing countries.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in preparing for the Government's review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In their White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", CM 2235, the Government undertook to bring forward work on their review of the future prospects for nuclear power and to make a further announcement later this year.

  The Government have received a considerable number of representations about the review from hon. Members, members of the public, the nuclear industry and other interested parties, both on the areas which the review should cover and on the way in which the review should be conducted. In addition, the Trade and Industry Select Committee made recommendations in its report "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal"—HC 237—earlier this year.

  The Government are carefully considering these representations as part of their preparatory work on the review. Some of the issues identified in the context of this
  756
  work are the extent to which nuclear power is now competitive; the present economics of nuclear power generation; nuclear power's contribution to diversity and security of supply; and environmental aspects of nuclear power.

  We will announce the precise terms of reference for the review, and how it will be conducted, as soon as possible.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Commercial Property Law
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to bring forward legislation to put into effect the reports announced on 31 March to implement most of the Law Commissioner's recommendations for reforming the law on commercial property leases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legislation to give effect to the Government's decision to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report, "Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate"—Law Corn. No. 174—for all future leases including commercial leases but not for existing leases, will be introduced as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.

  Judges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce requirements for all judges to undergo comprehensive medical and psychological examinations prior to appointment and thereupon annually.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  High Court judges, circuit judges and district judges are required to undergo a medical examination as a condition of their appointment. In addition, medical examinations of serving judges are undertaken when appropriate. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to revise the current requirements.

  Special Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department (1) 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;

  (2) if he will list the names and job descriptions of each special ministerial adviser employed in his Department showing any particular outputs for which each adviser is responsible.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no special advisers to Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  The Department's courts and offices are organised administratively into six circuits, the
  757
  Supreme Court group and headquarters. The total expenditure for the last two financial years and year to date are as follows:

  Location

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £

  £

  £

  Circuits

  Midland and Oxford

  1,047,150

  991,539

  456,937

  North Eastern

  596,478

  692,134

  230,214

  Northern

  640,705

  714,775

  409,274

  South Eastern

  2,514,268

  2,338,134

  668,232

  Wales and Chester

  315,991

  300,854

  206,347

  Western

  332,923

  455,838

  192,910

  Supreme Court

  643,157

  640,979

  237,755

  Headquarters

  421,374

  399,934

  218,899

  TOTAL

  6,512,046

  6,534,187

  2,620,568

  Details of expenditure incurred prior to 1991–92 are not held centrally. A detailed list of expenditure in each individual court and office has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Clean-break Settlements
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many clean-break settlements have been agreed in divorce cases since the inception of the Child Support Agency.

  i. Live TV Link Applications (s.32 Criminal Justice Act 1988).Implementation 5 January 1989.

  Age Unknown1

  Under 14

  Under 17

  Mixed age range

  Total number of cases

  1992

  1 January-30 September 1992

  Granted

  229

  229

  Refused

  9

  9

  1992

  1 October-31 December 1992

  Granted (or case disposed of prior to trial)

  60

  12

  7

  79

  Refused

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993

  1 January-to date

  Granted (or case disposed of prior to trial)

  270

  120

  57

  447

  Refused

  8

  4

  2

  14

  1 Prior to the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 the age of the child was not recorded. The 'Mixed age range' column includes those cases where the child witnesses spanned both age ranges.

  ii. Pre-Recorded Video Interview Application (s.32A Criminal Justice Act 1988, as inserted by s.54 Criminal Justice Act 1991). Implementation 1 October 1992.

  Under 14

  Under 17

  Mixed age range

  Total number of cases

  1992

  1 October-31 December 1992

  Granted (or case disposed of prior to trial)

  4

  2

  1

  7

  Refused

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993

  1 January-to date

  Granted (or case disposed of prior to trial)

  122

  42

  32

  196

  Refused

  4

  0

  1

  5

  758
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Children (Court Appearances)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court cases there have been in each of the last two years involving children(a) under 17 years and (b) under 14 years; how many of these children requested the use of (i) video link, (ii) video recording and (iii) the use of screens in court; and how many requests were granted.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought by the hon. Member on the total number of criminal cases involving children in the last two years has not been collated, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The tables give the information sought with regard to the usage of live television link equipment, pre-recorded video evidence and screens in criminal cases in the Crown court. In non-criminal cases, existing legislation does not allow for either television links or pre-recorded video evidence to be used, and the information sought with regard to the use of screens is not collated.
  759

  iii. Applications to use Screens

  Under 14

  Under 17

  Mixed age range

  Total number of cases

  1993

  Granted

  19

  24

  11

  54

  Refused

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Note: Applications to use screens were not recorded prior to 1 January 1993.

  High Court Judges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the number of High Court judges who are(a) Asian and (b) black, on 1 December.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As at 1 December 1993, there were 94 High Court judges. The ethnic origin of those appointed as High Court judges has not been recorded formally in the past, but it is known that none is black or Asian.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department issued 170 press releases in 1986; 147 in 1987; 182 in 1988; 175 in 1989; 206 in 1990; 245 in 1991; and 333 in 1992. A total of 297 have been issued to 14 December in 1993. There are no records of press releases before 1986.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many adjudicators there are(a) at first instance and (b) on appeal dealing with immigration cases; how many are (i) full-time and (ii) part-time, and how many are (1) black, (2) Asian and (3) female.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are dealing with immigration cases(a) 116 immigration adjudicators at first instance and (b) 12 legal members and 27 lay members on appeal.

  Of the immigration adjudicators at first instance, 16 are full time and 100 are part time; three are black, four are Asian and 23 are female.

  Of the members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, three are full time and 36 are part time; four are black, six are Asian and 14 are female.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on running costs for 1992–93,
  760
  estimated outturn for 1993–94 and plans for 1994–95 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms (in 1992–93 prices) are shown in the table:

  £'000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Cash terms

  396,548

  419,000

  427,000

  1992–93 prices

  396,548

  405,811

  397,653

  Expenditure Review
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what will be the terms of reference of the Lord Chancellor's Department proposed fundamental review of expenditure by his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government announced in February 1993 that they would conduct in-depth reviews of all public spending by every department of state. The work will examine long-term trends in spending on individual programmes to assess whether they are sustainable, and seek out areas from which the state might withdraw altogether or where better targeting is now appropriate. The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" laid before the House of Commons on 30 November 1993 mentioned that the next batch of reviews would cover, among others, the legal departments.

  The terms of reference of the review will be to:

  (a) assess whether the trends in expenditure on courts and legal services are sustainable and advise what must be done if they are not;

  (b) consider whether public expenditure by the legal departments in England and Wales has a clear purpose, whether the purpose is right for the 1990s and if so whether it is being pursued cost effectively.

  The review team will make its first report to the Lord Chancellor by June 1994.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Quangos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, what plans exist to modernise audit and accountability arrangements for Government and quangos.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The Comptroller and Auditor General is the statutory auditor of all Government Departments, executive agencies, and of a wide range of other public sector bodies. In addition, he audits the accounts of some other public sector organisations by agreement. For all these bodies, the Comptroller and Auditor General reports to Parliament.

  The Comptroller and Auditor General is also the auditor of some 50 per cent. of executive non-departmental public bodies. For other non-departmental public bodies the

  761
  auditor, normally from the private sector, is appointed by the responsible Secretary of state. The accounts of these bodies are laid before parliament.

  Recent reviews of the financial audit methods of the National Audit Office suggest that they are comparable with best practice in the auditing profession in the United kingdom.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts Expenditure
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask Secretary of State for National Heritage What has been public expenditure on the arts in real terms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  Government funding for the arts is mainly provided through the Arts Council. Since 1979, its grant in aid in each year has been, in 1979–80 prices

  £000s

  1979–80

  63,125

  1980–81

  59,980

  1981–82

  61,995

  1982–83

  65,678

  1983–84

  66,053

  1984–85

  66,703

  1988–86

  65,771

  1966–87

  81,706

  1987–88

  79,689

  1988–89

  81,704

  1989–90

  77,940

  1990–91

  81,537

  1991–92

  84,711

  1992–93

  92,922

  1993–94

  91,799

  Arts Funding
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many meetings he has held with the Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss local authority funding of the arts; and when the meetings took place.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have had no bilateral meetings with the Secratary of State for the Environment specifically to discuss local authority funding for the arts, but my officials remain in contact with their colleagues in the Department of the Environment on this and other issues.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. Sproat
  My Department was established in April 1992. In the year 1992–93, the Department and its agencies spent £225,367 on identifiable heating costs. In the current year, we have spent £161,064 on identifiable costs. Costs are estimated in some cases where the new Department was a part-occupier of other Department's premises, or where energy costs refer also to other uses.

  The breakdown of costs is as follows:
  762

  £

  1992–93

  Horseguards road

  2,441

  Grove house

  1,210

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency:

  Hampton court

  61,500

  Kensington Palace

  15,854

  Tower of London

  141,416

  Banquetting house

  2,946

  1993–94 to date

  Horseguards road

  274

  Grove house

  1,746

  Historic Royal Palances Agency:

  Hampton court

  53,700

  Kensington Palace

  8,175

  Tower of London

  97,169

  Time Zone
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations his Department has received on the subject of Britain's time zone.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department has received representations on a move to central European time from its sponsor bodies and various trade organisations. All have been in favour of such a change.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what studies his Department has commissioned on the effects of an extra hour of evening daylight on rates of participation in outdoor sports activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  There has been no direct assessment of this kind. However the Sports Council, which is my Department's adviser on matters relating to sport and active recreation, takes the view that an additional hour of evening daylight would help to increase the opportunities for participation.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate his Department has made of the likely effect on the British tourist industry of an extra hour of evening daylight all through the year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  There has been no direct assessment of this kind. However, the English tourist board, which is my Department's adviser on domestic tourism matters, takes the view that an additional hour of evening daylight would help to extend the tourist season by enabling many outdoor attractions to open to a later hour. Such a move would also promote greater employment opportunities.

  Commercial Television
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what mechanism there is for taking into account when determining his policies towards the awarding of commercial television franchises and towards possible mergers and takeovers in commercial television the level of violence depicted on television.

  Mr. Brooke
  The licensing and regulation of commercial television are matters for the Independent
  763
  Television Commission, which carries out the responsibilities laid on it by the Broadcasting Act 1990. All licensees, regardless of ownership, have to comply with the ITC programme code, which includes guidance on the portrayal of violence in programmes.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many press releases his Department has issued in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage was established in April 1992. Between April and December 1992, the Department issued 129 press notices. In 1993, to date, the Department has issued 177 press notices.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no special ministerial advisers employed in my Department.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no special advisers to Ministers in my Department.

  Bromley Social Services Department
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Crown Prosecution Service has yet reached a decision in respect of prosecution over the alleged fraud within the social services department of the London borough of Bromley; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The Metropolitan police have been asked to make further inquiries. When the result of those inquiries is known, the decision will be taken.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Sudan on the subject of human rights and the rights to freedom of religious worship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Khartoum takes every suitable opportunity, both bilaterally and in concert with other European Union heads of mission, to express our concern to the Sudanese authorities at reported abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms, freedom of religion among them. We were 764
  active earlier this year in securing the appointment of a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in Sudan. At the United Nations General Assembly, we co-sponsored a hard-hitting resolution in the third committee, commending the work of the special rapporteur, which was passed on 6 December by 102 votes to 11.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office practice is not to make use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies.

  (a) Since April 1992 executive search consultants have not been used in making appointments to public bodies.

  (b) None.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the appointments made to public bodies by him since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The number of press releases issued per year by the FCO and ODA press offices is as follows:

  FCO

  ODA

  1979

  176

  160

  1980

  168

  155

  1981

  221

  125

  1982

  169

  129

  1983

  138

  149

  1984

  120

  148

  1985

  142

  186

  1986

  163

  178

  1987

  168

  148

  1988

  120

  127

  1989

  177

  135

  1990

  263

  114

  1991

  221

  102

  1992

  182

  111

  1993

  189

  191

  1At 13 December 1993.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, in 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The final outturn for the recurrent costs of running the Department in 1992–93 is:
  765

  £ million

  FCO Diplomatic Wing

  520.976

  Overseas Development Administration

  45.650

  Total

  566.626

  The total running cost limit for 1993–94 in cash terms is:

  £million

  FCO Diplomatic Wing

  579.877

  Overseas Development Administration

  51.771

  Total

  631.648

  An estimated outturn will be published in the spring in the 1994 departmental report and the unified Budget supplement.

  Estimates of expenditure will be published in the spring in the 1994 departmental report and in the 1994–95 supply estimates.

  The GDP deflators required to calculate real terms figures are shown on page 121 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", HC 31, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Manchester United Supporters
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 407, if there has yet been any response from the Turkish Government to the representations made by the British ambassador in Ankara in regard to the treatment of Manchester United supporters by the Turkish authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Turkish authorities have told the British ambassador in Ankara that a formal response to his representations would be available soon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has also received a letter from the Turkish ambassador confirming this stressing that the Turkish authorities are taking the allegations very seriously.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 407, if he has (a) met or (b) plans to meet the Turkish ambassador to discuss the allegations of mistreatment of Manchester United supporters by the Turkish authorities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not met the Turkish ambassador to discuss these allegations. However, I met him on 8 November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to the Turkish ambassador on 2 December with a list of the main allegations. We are currently awaiting his detailed response. When we have this we shall decide what further action should be taken.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 December, Official Report, column 407, what
  766
  further action he now proposes to take in regard to the treatment of Manchester United supporters by the Turkish authorities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have pressed for a report from the Turkish authorities. Further action will be considered in the light of that report.

EDUCATION

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many educational institutions the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education has visited during his first 12 months in office.

  Mr. Boswell
  I have visited a total of 67 educational institutions during my first 12 months in office, as follows:

  Date

  Institutions visited

  Tuesday,15 December

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New College

  Monday,1 February

  Brooklands College

  Friday,12 February

  Beanfield Infant School, Corby;

  Beanfield Junior School, Corby;

  Brooke CTC, Corby

  Monday,15 February

  Exeter University

  Friday, 19 February

  Open University, Milton Keynes

  Friday, 26 February

  New College, Oxford

  Monday, 8 March

  Coventry University

  Tuesday,16 March

  University of West of England

  Friday, 19 March

  Kirby College; University of Teeside

  Monday, 22 March

  Edge Hill College

  Friday, 26 March

  Daventry William Parker School

  Wednesday, 31 March

  Hackney College

  Wednesday, 21 April

  Central St. Martins School of Art

  Friday, 23 April

  Blackburn College;

  William Temple High School, Preston;

  North Cheshire College, Warrington

  Wednesday, 28 April

  University of Westminister

  Friday, 30 April

  Tresham College, Kettering

  Friday, 14 May

  Northampton School for Boys;

  Daventry Tertiary College

  Tuesday, 20 May

  London Institute of Education

  Friday, 21 May

  St. Crispin's School;

  Reading University

  Saturday, 12 June

  Nuffield College, Oxford

  Friday, 28 May

  Campion School, Northants

  Friday, 4 June

  Manchester College, Oxford

  Wednesday, 16 June

  St. Vincent College, Gosport

  Friday,18 June

  Beachborough School

  Monday, 21 June

  ADT College, Wandsworth

  Friday, 25 June

  Churchill College, Cambridge;

  Malvern Girls' College

  Wednesday, 30 June

  Berkshire College of Agriculture

  Friday, 2 July

  Magdalen College School, Brackley;

  Spoone School, Towester

  Tuesday, 8 July

  St. Antony's College, Oxford

  Tuesday, 20 July

  South Bank University

  Wednesday, 21 July

  Keele University

  Tuesday, 17 August

  Europe Kolleg, Kassel, Germany

  Tuesday, 30 September

  North Oxfordshire College, Banbury

  Friday, 1 October

  Nene College, Northampton (and also Friday, 5 November)

  Wednesday, 6 October

  Blackpool and Fylde College

  Tuesday, 7 October

  Blackpool Sixth Form College

  Tuesday, 12 October

  Martin-Luther-University, Halle, Germany;

  Leipzig University

  Wednesday, 13 October

  Technical College, Dresden;

  Teachers' Academy, Dresden

  Friday, 22 October

  Sparsholt College, Hampshire

  Wednesday, 27 October

  Leeds Metropolitan University;

  University Of Leeds (Main Campus);

  University of Leeds, Bretton Hall;

  Birkbeck College

  767

  Date

  Institution Visited

  Sunday, 31 October

  Worcester College, Oxford

  Monday, 1 November

  East Birmingham College;

  Bournville College

  Thursday, 11 November

  Farnborough 6th Form College

  Monday, 15 November

  Wootton Bassett School, Wiltshire

  Wednesday, 17

  St. Martins' College, Lancaster;

  November

  Lancaster University

  Sunday, 21 November

  Oriel College, Oxford

  Friday, 19 November

  Guilsborough School, Northants

  Thursday, 25 November

  Cambridge Regional College

  Friday, 26 November

  University of Luton

  Wednesday, 1 December

  Bonn University, Germany

  Thursday, 2 December

  European University Institute, Florence

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what reasons, at what legislative stage and by which procedure, the provisions contained in section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944, concerning nursery education, were removed from the statute book.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944 was repealed by section 38(6) and schedule 7 of the Education Act 1980, and provision was substituted by section 24 of that Act. This was designed to clarify the imprecise wording of the 1944 Act as regards the nature of any duty to provide nursery education. The 1980 Act established that, as indeed had generally been assumed to be the position, there was a discretionary power, but no duty, on local education authorities to provide either nursery schools or education in nursery classes for children under five.

  Examinations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what evidence he has of any correlation between a school's examination performance and the number of taught hours.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Initial work carried out in the Department indicates on average a small but statistically significant positive correlation between the length of the taught week and educational performance as measured by public examinations and national tests. My right hon. Friend wrote to Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England on 9 December taking up his offer of help with a review of the length of the taught week and in particular asking for his advice on the relationship between the amount of taught time and the quality and standards of pupils' work; a copy of the letter, attached to DFE press notice 420/93, is in the Library. The chief inspector will be submitting an initial report by the end of January 1994.

  Degrees
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he plans in the balance of numbers of masters level and doctoral level degrees in the arts and humanities in line with the changes for science and technology courses announced in the White Paper "Realising our Potential"; if he will discuss this issue with the British Academy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The British Academy implemented a revised structure for its awards for postgraduate research in 768
  the humanities at the start of the current academic year. This new structure is similar to that proposed in the White Paper "Realising our Potential" for courses in science and technology. For the 1993–94 academic year, the academy has made 529 new awards for study at masters level and 519 for doctoral study. It is for the academy to determine this balance.

  Environmentl Education Advisers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the local education authorities that currently employ environmental education advisers and the ones that have ceased to do so over the last five years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that all schools, in stating their moral values and outlining their general ethos, refer to the importance of their responsibility for the environment and the development of such awareness among their pupils;

  (2) how he intends to meet the requirements of "Agenda 21", objectives 36.5D, incentive training, E, local environmental studies and F promoting proven education methods with respect to estuaries;

  (3) if he will help to increase schools' awareness of estuarine sites of importance to wildlife by providing educational resources and training for the interpretation of estuaries;

  (4) what plans he has to set up pre-service and in-service training programmes for all teachers and educational planners to ensure delivery of environmental education as recommended at the Rio summit.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Environmental education is addressed through the statutory subjects of the national curriculum: schools themselves are responsible for how environmental education is delivered. National curriculum geography includes study of rivers, river basins and seas; and requires that pupils are taught about the quality and vulnerability of different environments and the possibilities for protecting and managing them.

  Schools are free to include reference to the importance of their responsibilities for the environment and the development of such awareness among their pupils in the statement of the school's ethos and values included in their prospectuses, if they so wish.

  The Government provide specific grant to support expenditure on the national curriculum which is devolved mainly to schools to spend on books and equipment or training. It is for schools and LEAs to decide what priority to give to particular subject areas and to make detailed plans in the light of their own staff development needs.

  My right hon. Friend seeks to ensure, through his criteria for the approval of initial teacher training—ITT —that courses give a thorough preparation for teaching the national curriculum. The detailed content of courses is a matter for ITT providers and not the Government.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he has issued to local education authorities, schools and institutions of further and higher
  769
  education on those aspects of Agenda 21 dealing with education for sustainable development and the environment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. A general Government strategy document on sustainable development is in preparation.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made in the implementation of the recommendation of the Toyne report: "Environmental Responsibility: An Agenda for Further and Higher Education".

  Mr. Boswell
  When the report was published in February 1993, I welcomed it as a valuable contribution to debate in an area which involved complex issues. The report's recommendations were addressed to the whole higher and further education sector, but particularly the institutions themselves and the funding councils. We therefore distributed the report to vice-chancellors of universities, principals of colleges and the chairmen of the funding councils, drawing the recipients' attention to the recommendations addressed to their institutions. Implementation of these is a matter for them.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to ensure that Office for Standards in Education inspectors comment on the quality of environmental education when compiling reports following a school inspection.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the Education (Schools) Act 1992, registered inspectors conducting inspections of schools must report on the quality of education and standards achieved in accordance with Ofsted's published framework for inspection.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department occasionally uses the services of executive search consultants as one of the options available to ensure a sufficiently wide field of suitable candidates for appointment to our public bodies. Since April 1992, we have used these services once. On 4 December 1992, we announced that the Department had paid £27,000 to employ Saxton Bampfylde International plc to assist us in searching for candidates suitable for consideration for the chairmanship of the Schools Curriculum and Asessment Authority.

  Funding Councils
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria are used in the selection of the chair and the executive members of(a) the Further Education Funding Council, (b) the regional committees of the Further Education Funding Council, (c) the Higher Education Funding Council and (d) the Funding Agency for Schools, in respect of relevant experience and qualifications; and if he will make a statement.
  770
  Mr. Boswell
  The criteria governing appointments to the Further Education Funding Council are set out in section 1(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. There are no statutory requirements governing appointments to the regional committees of the Further Education Funding Council. However, the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century", Cm 1536, made it clear that the composition of the regional committees would be similar to that of the council. The criteria governing appointments to the Higher Education Funding Council for England are set out in section 62(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The criteria governing appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools are set out in section 3(3) of the Education Act 1993.

  Education Boards
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of(a) higher education corporations, (b) further education corporations, (c) grant-maintained schools and (d) city technology colleges; what guidelines he has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many board members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions.

  Mr. Boswell
  (a) The board of governors of higher education corporations must consist of not fewer than 12 and not more than 24 members, plus the principal unless the principal chooses not to be a member. The composition of the board is governed by the provisions of schedule 7A to the Education Reform Act 1988. This requires that up to 13 members shall be independent members appearing to have experience in industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession. No specific guidance has been given on particular areas from which membership should be drawn.

  (b) In accordance with their instruments of government, which have been prescribed by regulations, further education corporations must have between 10 and 20 members, of whom at least half must be business members, including a representative of the local training and enterprise council. They may co-opt up to two persons who are employees or members of a local authority. In the case of corporations to conduct sixth-form colleges, the initial members of which were appointed by my right hon. Friend, those responsible for submitting nominations were asked by my right hon. Friend to have regard to the overall balance of the membership in terms of age, gender and ethnic background.

  (c) The minimum number of possible members of a grant-maintained school governing body is 15. Although there is no maximum number, my right hon. Friend expects governing bodies to be of a manageable size. A guide giving details of the composition of governing bodies is available to all grant-maintained schools. It is a statutory requirement that some governors be members of the local business community. There is no requirement that governing bodies include members of ethnic minorities, women, local authorities or trade unionists.

  (d) The model scheme of government for city technology colleges suggests a minimum of nine and a maximum of 20 persons on the board of governors. General guidance on the composition of the governing

  771
  body is included in the model scheme, but there is no specific guidance on how many board members should come from any of the groups named.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of the(a) Further Education Funding Council, (b) regional committees of the Further Education Funding Council, regional committees of the Further Education Funding Council; (c) action trusts and (d) Funding Agency for Schools; what guidelines he has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many board members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information relating to the first part of this question is as follows: Following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative, goals were set for increasing the representation of ethnic minority groups and women on our public bodies and the Department has made steady progress in this direction. Guidance is available on how these goals may be achieved. Notwithstanding this consideration, appointments to all our public bodies are made solely on the basis of the aptitude, merit and suitability of candidates to undertake the varying requirements associated with individual bodies.

  Maximum number of board members

  Minimum number of board members

  Further Education Funding Council

  15

  12

  Regional Committees of the Further

  approximately 12

  Education Funding Council

  members

  Education Associations

  not less than 5 members

  Funding Agency for Schools

  15

  10

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the total numbers of(a) chairpersons and non-executive board members of city technology colleges, (b) chairpersons and members of the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools and (c) chairpersons and members of the governing bodies of further education and sixth form colleges.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  (a) There are currently 14 chairmen of the city technology college governing bodies. Information is not held centrally on the total number of members of governing bodies but each governing body has at least nine members.

  (b) There are 697 chairmen of operating self governing —grant-maintained—schools' governing bodies. There are a further 108 chairmen designate for schools which are shortly to become self governing. Information is not held centrally of the total number of members of governing bodies but each governing body has at least 15 members.

  (c) The governing bodies of the 464 further education and sixth form colleges normally have between 10 and 20 members, including a chairman.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent on the assisted places scheme in Devon in each financial year since 1990.
  772
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Financial Year

  DFE expenditure £000s

  1990–91

  1,903

  1991–92

  2,259

  1992–93

  2,573

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

  Mr. Boswell
  The expenditure figures for advertising, including press, television and radio, by the Department for the financial years since 1979 are in the table.

  Year

  Advertising £k

  1979–80

  91.6

  1980–81

  8.9

  1981–82

  86.9

  1982–83

  6.0

  1983–84

  9.6

  1984–85

  18.5

  1985–86

  14.8

  1986–87

  532.0

  1987–88

  280.0

  1988–89

  515.0

  1989–90

  249.8

  1990–91

  2,604.0

  1991–92

  3,037.9

  1992–93

  1,086.4

  It would involve disproportionate costs to break down into individual months the advertising campaigns run by the Department from January to December 1993. Advertising costs are not billed when the adverts actually appear. Details of the campaigns run in the calendar year 1993 are as follows:

  Campaign

  Date

  Costs £k

  GM schools

  February to March

  200.0

  Testing in schools

  April to May

  449.0

  Further and high education charters

  September to October

  486.0

  Total

  1,135.0

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of press notices issued by the Department in each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Number

  1979

  124

  1980

  209

  1981

  201

  1982

  311

  773

  Number

  1983

  434

  1984

  218

  1985

  333

  1986

  348

  1987

  392

  1988

  418

  1989

  408

  1990

  406

  1991

  444

  1992

  425

  1993

  1423

  1 To 14 December.

  Henry VIII Clauses
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Henry VIII clauses have been contained in legislation from the Department of Education since 1979; and if he will list the relevant clause and Act in each case.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following provisions in Education Acts enacted since 1979 empower the Secretary of State to amend the Act in which they are contained:

  Section

  Education (No. 2) Act 1986:

  Section 30(5) and paragraph 5 of Schedule 3;

  Education Reform Act 1988:

  sections 3(4)(a), 41, 43(2)(a), 52(7)(a), 76(14) and 146(1) and paragraph 4 of Schedule 9; and

  Education Act 1993:

  section 41(10) and para-graph 1(4) of Schedule 3.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is as follows:

  i. The final outturn for the net recurrent costs of running the department in 1992–93 is £103.275 million.

  ii. The estimated outturn for 1993–94 is £89.575 million.

  iii. The Department's planned running costs expenditure for 1994–95 is £89 million.

  The GDP deflators required to calculate real terms figures are shown on page 121 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", HC 31, copies of which are available in the Library.

  It should be noted that the 1992–93 figures includes recurrent expenditure of £15.347 million by the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

  Secretary of State's Powers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many powers were conferred upon the holder of his post by(a) the Education Reform Act 1988, (b) the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and (c) the Education Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  These Acts confer on the Secretary of State a number of powers. Examples are powers to give directions—for example, the power under section 34(1) of the 1988 Act by order to direct the date by which a scheme of local management is to be submitted—and powers of approval—for example, of proposal for the establishment of a new grant-maintained school under section 51 of the 1993 Act. The legislation also contains many examples of powers to prescribe forms or information to be contained in notices, or periods in which duties are to be performed. To identify all the powers in the legislation referred to in the question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Student Income Survey
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the results of the recent survey of student income and expenditure conducted by Research Services Ltd. will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Research Services Ltd. will be publishing the survey report today. I am placing copies in the Library.

  The survey is an important contribution to the information available about students' financial circumstances since the introduction of student loans. Other recent surveys in this area have been based on small, unrepresentative samples and often less than rigorous questionnaires. The survey reported on today is the most extensive of its sort since the last one in the series in academic year 1988–89.

  It confirms, as expected, that public support for students under 26 who have taken out Government-subsidised loans has increased since the last survey was conducted in 1988–89. Their income from grant, loan, access funds and benefits rose by about a third in real terms as compared with grant and benefits in 1988–89.

  At the same time, the report records the reduced financial burden on parents, whose contribution to younger students' income has on average fallen by about a fifth in real terms since 1988–89. On average, parents have continued to pay in full the contribution expected of them, with most paying more and only about a third paying less.

  The Government particularly welcome the survey's finding that a higher proportion of students from lower social groups are entering higher education. The fears of those who said that the introduction of loans would deter these groups have not been realised.

  A system of loans for maintenance rates is based on the recognition that everyone's spending needs are different. The accelerated switch from grant to loan which my right hon. Friend announced on 30 November will enhance still further the flexibility of our system of student support.

  School Minibuses (Safety Belts)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he proposes to make compulsory the fitting of safety belts to all seated positions in minibuses owned or used by schools.
  775
  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are currently carrying out a review of the full technical and cost implications of seat belts in these vehicles.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police, Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resources available to the police forces in Wales to enable them to maintain an appropriate level of policing over the Christmas period.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is for the chief officer of each force to assess his operational requirements at any time, and to provide the appropriate level of policing.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the possibility of potential inadequacy of police resources in Wales over the Christmas period.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have received one representation. This relates to police staffing levels in the south Wales police area over the Christmas bank holiday period.

  Safer Cities Initiative
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to annnounce which local authorities will receive resources under the safer cities initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Racism and Immigrants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the specific actions his Department has taken to combat racism in(a) Tower Hamlets and (b) the United Kingdom;

  (2) what action his Department has taken to encourage a positive public perception of immigrants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Entry Refusals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against refusal of entry to visitors were made in the last year in which appeals were accepted; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information on the outcome of appeals against exclusion and against refusal of entry clearance for temporary purposes is given in Table 8.1 of Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1992", Cm 2368, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Immigration Complaints Audit Committee
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the three members he has appointed to the new immigration and nationality department complaints audit committee are members of the Conservative party.
  776
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The members of the IND complaints audit committee were appointed on the basis of the experience and expertise they would bring to the task. Party political affiliation, or the absence of it, played no part in their selection.

  As a matter of public record, one of the members is a Conservative member of a borough council. I have no knowledge of the political affiliations, if any, of the other two members.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in bringing forward proposals to ensure that the action to prevent drug misuse is co-ordinated effectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The fight against drugs is one of the Government's priorities. We remain committed to tackling every aspect of the drugs problem and are actively addressing issues across a range of policy areas which are the responsibility of a number of Government Departments. We need, however, to review our strategy to ensure that the policies we are pursuing are correctly identified and are co-ordinated effectively.

  The Secretary of State for Health and I have therefore decided—with the support of our colleagues—to set up a new central drugs co-ordination unit. The unit will have two major tasks. First, it will ensure that departmental policies are planned, developed and implemented in England within a clear strategic framework. Second, the unit will take the lead in devising an effective basis for local co-ordination of action to tackle the drugs problem, which will add significantly to the value of much excellent work already being carried out locally in the public, private and voluntary sectors. The unit's immediate task is to review the strategy on drugs published in 1989 and make recommendations for its improvement.

  The unit will be attached to the Privy Council Office, reporting to the Lord President of the Council, who chairs the Cabinet committee on drugs issues. Individual Government Departments will remain responsible for their policies which impact on the drugs problem and will work closely with the unit.

  In Scotland, the arrangements for co-ordination are among the issues being addressed by the drugs task force led by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office. The Secretary of State for Wales will shortly announce the arrangements which will apply in Wales.

  Film Violence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing further restrictions on the depiction of violence in films and videos.

  Mr. Maclean
  We already have a well-established and rigorous system of video classification exercised by the British Board of Film Classification under the Video Recordings Act 1984 and 1993. In practice the BBFC exercises a similar role in relation to cinema films, although the legal responsibility under the Cinemas Act 1985 lies with local authorities.

  The BBFC's approach to the classification of films and videos is discussed in its annual report for 1992, a copy of

  777
  which is available in the Library. This makes it clear that the BBFC takes its responsibilities very seriously, and that it is particularly concerned about the depiction of violence. The BBFC is required to have special regard to the fact that videos will be viewed in the home; consequently films are more restrictively classified on video than for the cinema, and some cinema films may not be regarded as suitable for release on video in any version. The BBFC, with others, has commissioned research into the viewing habits of young offenders in order to inform its future classification policy, and I understand that the results of this research are expected to be published early next year.

  The Government are not complacent about this issue, and we keep the present controls under regular review. Nevertheless, as I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 7 December, Official Report, column 163, the law can go only so far and the final responsibility for what is seen must inevitably rest in the home.

  Charities
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities are currently registered in the united Kingdom; and how many of them hold funds in excess of £5 million.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of November 1993, there were 169,829 charities on the register kept by the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales.

  No reliable figure exists for the number of charities which hold funds or other assets worth £5 million or more. There are, however, at least 345 registered charities in England and Wales with an annual income of £5 million or more in their last financial year.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to altering the guidelines to ensure that charities dispose of their funds in excess of maintaining reasonable resources.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This is a matter for the Charity Commissioners. I understand that the commissioners are concerned about the high level of accumulations of income of some charities and are currently considering the key policy issues that arise from this. The commissioners will complete their examination of the matter in the new year and are planning to issue formal guidance to charities shortly after that.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Operation Cheetah
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many man hours have been used in Operation Cheetah at the latest date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Merseyside police estimate that, since April 1990, approximately 22,000 man days have been devoted to Operation Cheetah.

  Combat 18
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider launching an investigation into the activities of the group Combat 18.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  If anyone has information that an individual or group is engaged in any kind of criminal activity he or she should pass it to the police. It is part of the normal responsibility of the police to keep an eye on all organisations that might pose a threat to public order.

  Prisoners (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners or ex-prisoners instituted legal action in relation to their imprisonment against the Home Office in 1992; and how many of these cases were settled out of court or were found against the Home Office;

  (2) on how many occasions prisoners or ex-prisoners were paid compensation or ex-gratia payment for other than losses of personal property in 1992; and what is the total of that compensation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 16 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent questions about litigation and compensation payments to prisoners and ex-prisoners.
  I have assumed for the purpose of this reply that your questions relate to litigation and compensation payments connected to time spent in prison custody, rather than wrongful conviction, which of course falls outside my sphere of responsibility.
  Prison Service records show 130 pieces of legal action against the department lodged by prisoners or ex-prisoners in 1992. Of these 13 have been settled out of court or found against the Home Office; two have been withdrawn or struck out and the remaining 115 appear as outstanding (although there may be some delay in the recording of resolved cases). The compensation (including ex-gratia payments) paid to prisoners and ex-prisoners in 1992, other than for loss of property, was as follows:

  Injuries at work

  £265,813

  Excessive detention

  £22,718

  Other claims1

  £123,114

  Total

  £411,645

  1 Including personal injury outside work.

  Figures for the number of individual claims are not recorded and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Wymott Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what educational facilities are available to prisoners currently housed at Wymott prison;

  (2) what work facilities are available to prisoners currently housed at Wymott prison;

  (3) what training facilities are available to prisoners currently housed at Wymott prison;

  (4) what exercise facilities outside the cell block area are available to prisoners currently housed at Wymott prison;
  779
  (5) what progress is being made in the refurbishment of Wymott prison following the recent riots; what hours and days of the week are the contractors on site; and what proportion of the building is now habitable.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent questions about prisoners facilities and the progress of refurbishment at Wymott Prison.
  There are facilities for forty full-time education places during the week within the education department, with a further forty prisoners participating in part-time evening education within the Houseblock.
  A range of work is available now and includes tailoring, weaving, engineering and laundry. There are enough places for the number of prisoners held at Wymott. Further work places will be available in the New Year as the population rises.
  In addition to the training provided through education and work, a number of accredited NVQ and formal Vocational Training Courses (VTCs) will be introduced over coming months.
  The important work with prisoners to help them address offending behavour will commence in the New Year. This will include delivery of the core sex offender programme, for which staff are being trained as we promised when it was decided to move sex offenders from Risley to Wymott.
  There are ample outdoor areas for fresh-air exercise, together with a fully equipped gymnasium.
  Of the four house blocks, 'B' House is already fully occupied while refurbishment of 'A' House is on line for completion by 23 December and ready for occupation in mid-January 1994. The two remaining house blocks are to be demolished and re-built with stronger, cellular accommodation which will not be available for occupancy for about two years. Contractors are working on site for eleven hours a day, seven days a week.

  Police officers assaulted on duty 1992

  Officers assaulted

  Fatal assaults

  Serious assaults

  Minor assaults

  Other assaults

  Forces

  Aged 18 to 20

  Aged 21 to 25

  Aged 26 to 30

  Aged over 30

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  110

  130

  244

  0

  34

  450

  26

  Bedfordshire

  0

  37

  55

  60

  0

  5

  43

  125

  Cambridge

  0

  28

  39

  49

  0

  4

  119

  10

  Cheshire

  7

  207

  222

  279

  0

  23

  179

  513

  City of London

  1

  5

  6

  0

  0

  0

  8

  4

  Cleveland

  2

  35

  53

  93

  0

  14

  107

  84

  Cumbria

  5

  22

  33

  70

  0

  9

  129

  6

  Derbyshire

  0

  58

  103

  156

  0

  21

  213

  83

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  48

  96

  166

  0

  16

  108

  246

  Dorset

  2

  17

  32

  87

  0

  26

  110

  2

  Durham

  2

  43

  77

  105

  0

  7

  35

  185

  Dyfed-Powys

  3

  11

  23

  39

  0

  11

  78

  1

  Essex

  11

  66

  50

  82

  0

  10

  110

  89

  Gloucestershire

  2

  28

  37

  78

  0

  17

  126

  2

  Greater Manchester

  0

  167

  431

  411

  0

  83

  458

  468

  Gwent

  5

  72

  88

  124

  0

  10

  14

  265

  Hampshire

  2

  54

  113

  219

  0

  10

  94

  284

  Hertfordshire

  4

  36

  46

  47

  0

  3

  35

  100

  Humberside

  1

  130

  42

  144

  0

  7

  96

  130

  Kent

  4

  52

  67

  84

  0

  13

  47

  147

  Lancashire

  0

  105

  130

  201

  0

  14

  118

  334

  Leicestershire

  3

  23

  46

  78

  0

  8

  45

  111

  Lincolnshire

  0

  12

  20

  74

  0

  6

  51

  57

  Merseyside

  3

  134

  419

  463

  0

  59

  218

  762

  Norfolk

  11

  39

  54

  119

  0

  7

  74

  177

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish the information provided to the Sheehy inquiry on the number of policemen injured on duty;

  (2) if he will publish the information provided to the Sheehy inquiry on the probability of death in service for police officers and the life expectations of those retiring at age 50 and 60 years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on these subjects was provided to the inquiry from a number of different sources. That provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for England and Wales on the number of police officers assaulted on duty and by the Government Actuary's Department relating to the assumed probability of death in service for police officers and assumed life expectancy of those retiring is shown in the tables:

  Specimen rates given to the Sheehy inquiry for the assumed probability of deaths in service at the ages specified Serving officers

  Age nearest

  Males

  Females

  20

  0.0007

  0.0002

  25

  0.0006

  0.0003

  30

  0.0004

  0.0003

  35

  0.0005

  0.0004

  40

  0.0008

  0.0006

  45

  0.0013

  0.0009

  50

  0.23

  0.0013

  55

  0.38

  0.0021

  Retired officers: assumed expectation of life on normal retirement

  Years

  Normal retirement age

  Males

  Females

  50

  28.3

  —

  60

  19.8

  —

  781

  Officers assaulted

  Fatal assaults

  Serious assaults

  Minor assaults

  Other assaults

  Forces

  Aged 18 to 20

  Aged 21 to 25

  Aged 26 to 30

  Aged over 30

  North Wales

  0

  19

  33

  89

  0

  8

  124

  142

  North Yorkshire

  3

  30

  38

  69

  0

  6

  134

  0

  Northamptonshire

  2

  31

  32

  71

  0

  12

  124

  0

  Northumbria

  0

  75

  139

  218

  0

  68

  430

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  85

  107

  170

  0

  13

  268

  126

  South Wales

  3

  118

  172

  290

  0

  41

  661

  47

  South Yorkshire

  1

  43

  70

  83

  0

  20

  83

  94

  Staffordshire

  20

  140

  110

  131

  0

  8

  358

  35

  Suffolk

  0

  24

  39

  69

  0

  6

  90

  74

  Surrey

  2

  73

  72

  92

  0

  12

  226

  1

  Sussex

  8

  56

  81

  165

  0

  18

  311

  33

  Thames Valley

  2

  89

  108

  175

  0

  13

  99

  262

  Warwickshire

  2

  34

  34

  59

  0

  8

  64

  57

  West Mercia

  1

  33

  66

  141

  0

  10

  126

  168

  West Midlands

  23

  362

  514

  746

  0

  110

  680

  855

  West Yorkshire

  7

  151

  210

  371

  0

  58

  373

  346

  Wiltshire

  8

  57

  56

  73

  0

  8

  98

  88

  Provincial Total

  156

  2,859

  4,293

  6,495

  0

  836

  7,314

  6,545

  Metropolitan Police

  29

  289

  130

  98

  0

  140

  1,003

  2,270

  England and Wales Total

  185

  3,148

  4,423

  6,593

  0

  976

  8,317

  8,815

  Prisoners (Release)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it obligatory for the prison authorities to give prior notification to the police and to the victims of the crime of the release of a prisoner convicted of assault.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the early release arrangements introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Prison Service already provides the police with prior notice of the release dates of all offenders, irrespective of the offence committed. I do not believe that it would be practicable to require the Prison Service to inform the victim or the victim's family in every instance that an offender, or particular class of offender, is due to be released. However, the Probation Service national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community which came into effect at the same time as the early release arrangements, require that in particularly sensitive cases the probation officer should, when completing a pre-discharge or parole assessment report, address the whereabouts, attitude towards release and concerns of the victim or the victim's family.

  Central European Time
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now intends to bring forward his proposals for the adoption of central European time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 4 November 1933,Official Report, column 363.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to the likely effect on rates of crime against the person of a move to central European time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1989 Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document", CM22, considered 782
  that definite conclusions about the possible effect of a move to central European time on crime in general, or on particular offences, are difficult to draw.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public exchequer of a move to central European time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 15 January 1993, at column 828.

  Summer Time
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been his Department's response to the proposed seventh directive on summer time arrangements in the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have made clear in negotiations on the draft seventh directive that its terms are acceptable, while proposing that, on subsidiarity grounds, summer time start and end dates would better be the subject of a recommendation than of Community legislation.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Howard
  Since April 1992, the appointments of chief executive of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Data Protection Registrar have been advertised.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.
  783
  Mr. Howard
  Executive search consultants are used in making appointments to public bodies where it is thought that they will be able to supplement usefully the field of applicants.

  Since April 1992, consultants have been used for the post of chief executive of the Commission for Racial Equality and in the current competition for the post of Data Protection Registrar.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not our practice to disclose individual contract values. However, the combined value of the two contracts was £32,500.

  "Voluntary Action"
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the proposals in the report, "Voluntary Action".

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  "Voluntary Action" was written by Barry Knight of the Centre for Research and Innovation in Social Policy and Practice: the views in the report are those of the author. The Government consider the report to be a

  September

  October

  November

  Establishment

  Super-numerary posts

  Establishment

  Super-numerary posts

  Establishment

  Super-numerary posts

  Avon and Somerset

  3,087

  3

  3,087

  3

  3,087

  3

  Bedfordshire

  1,178

  0

  1,178

  0

  1,178

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  1,241

  38

  1,241

  38

  1,241

  38

  Cheshire

  1,920

  2

  1,920

  2

  1,920

  2

  City of London

  798

  90

  798

  105

  798

  105

  Cleveland

  1,502

  0

  1,502

  0

  1,502

  0

  Cumbria

  1,187

  1

  1,187

  1

  1,187

  1

  Derbyshire

  1,850

  0

  1,850

  0

  1,850

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,928

  4

  2,928

  4

  2,928

  4

  Dorset

  1,302

  1

  1,302

  1

  1,302

  1

  Durham

  1,389

  1

  1,389

  1

  1,389

  1

  Dyfed Powys

  969

  1

  969

  1

  969

  1

  Essex

  2,950

  0

  2,950

  0

  2,950

  0

  Gloucestershire

  1,184

  0

  1,184

  0

  1,184

  0

  Greater Manchester

  7,077

  0

  7,077

  0

  7,077

  0

  Gwent

  1,010

  2

  1,010

  2

  1,010

  2

  Hampshire

  3,269

  0

  3,269

  0

  3,269

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,684

  0

  1,684

  0

  1,684

  0

  Humberside

  2,034

  0

  2,034

  0

  2,034

  0

  Kent

  3,136

  37

  3,136

  37

  3,136

  37

  Lancashire

  3,229

  3

  3,229

  3

  3,229

  3

  Leicestershire

  1,853

  1

  1,853

  1

  1,853

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1,206

  0

  1,206

  0

  1,206

  0

  Merseyside

  4,706

  3

  4,706

  3

  4,706

  3

  Metropolitan Police

  27,839

  0

  27,839

  0

  27,839

  0

  Norfolk

  1,446

  1

  1,446

  1

  1,446

  1

  North Wales

  1,369

  2

  1,369

  2

  1,369

  2

  North Yorkshire

  1,418

  0

  1,418

  0

  1,418

  0

  Northamptonshire

  1,190

  1

  1,190

  1

  1,190

  1

  Northumbria

  3,613

  0

  3,613

  0

  3,163

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  2,344

  13

  2,344

  13

  2,344

  13

  South Wales

  3,168

  3

  3,168

  3

  3,168

  3

  South Yorkshire

  3,031

  0

  3,031

  0

  3,031

  0

  Staffordshire

  2,215

  1

  2,215

  1

  2,215

  1

  Suffolk

  1,233

  1

  1,233

  1

  1,233

  1

  Surrey

  1,673

  17

  1,673

  17

  1,673

  17

  Sussex

  3,014

  1

  3,014

  1

  3,014

  1

  Thames Valley

  3,812

  71

  3,812

  71

  3,812

  71

  Warwickshire

  1,020

  25

  1,020

  25

  1,020

  25

  West Mercia

  2,053

  2

  2,053

  2

  2,053

  2

  West Midlands

  6,977

  0

  6,977

  0

  6,977

  0

  West Yorkshire

  5,295

  2

  5,295

  2

  5,295

  2

  Wiltshire

  1,181

  108

  1,181

  108

  1,181

  018

  Total

  126,580

  435

  126,580

  450

  126,580

  450

  784
  worthwhile contribution to the continuing debate on charities and the voluntary sector, but do not accept the report's proposals to end charitable status, tax concessions for charitable giving or to abolish the Charity Commission. The Government also consider that the proposal to split the voluntary sector into "first force" and "third sector" is too simple and mechanistic.

  Police
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the police establishment plus supernumeraries for each month of 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 24 November, at columns 55–56. Additional figures for the period September to November are given in the table. I will write to the hon. Member when complete figures for December are available.

  Art Theft
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to enable police forces to improve the detection of art theft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The investigation of art theft is entirely a matter for individual chief officers of police. Some police forces have already taken steps to improve the effectiveness of their operations against art theft. The establishment of the artefact classification and indentification system by the Metropolitan police is one example to which I brought the hon. Member's attention on 7 July.

  I cannot stress too greatly the important role members of the public play in preventing this type of crime by marking and keeping details and photographs of their valuable possessions.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of news releases issued by the Home Office for each full calendar year since 1979 is:

  Number

  1979

  250

  1980

  249

  1981

  237

  1982

  207

  1983

  249

  1984

  327

  1985

  346

  1986

  406

  1987

  384

  1988

  476

  1989

  500

  1990

  475

  1991

  510

  1992

  348

  Immigration Advisory Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are(a) the names, (b) the occupations and (c) the salaries of the trustees of the organisation formerly called UKIAS.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The trustees of the Immigration Appeals Advisory Service are Mr. Humfrey Malins, Chairman, Dr. M. S. Akram, Mr. Alf Dubs, Ms Rachel Pickavance and Dr. Z. U. Khan. I understand that trustees receive no remuneration for their services. The hon. Member may wish to address his request for information about the occupations of trustees direct to the Service, which, as I said in a reply to him on 10 December,Official Report, column 418, is an independent body.

  Prison, Birmingham
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what present proposals he has to build a new prison in Birmingham.

  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.
  786
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Robin Corbett, dated 16 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about any proposals the Prison Service has to build a new prison in Birmingham.
  Although the Prison Service is actively seeking sites for new prisons, at present there are no specific plans to build a new prison in Birmingham. Any such sites must be near to the locality from which prisoners come in order to meet our commitments set out in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice". At present, there are insufficient prison places available in the West Midlands area to house all the prisoners who come from that area.

  Hunters
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect his proposals for an offence of aggravated trespass would have on hunters entering land belonging to people who have not given them permission to do so.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The proposed new offence will apply to all trespassers, including hunters, who disrupt, or seek to disrupt, a lawful activity on land.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real
  terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Howard
  The final outturn for the recurrent costs of running the Department in 1992–93 is £1,421 million. The estimated outturn for 1993–94 is £1,642 million—£1,590 million at 1992–93 prices. These figures include the costs of immigration service staff and of Prison Service grades. The planned running costs expenditure for 1994–95 will be published in the Home Office annual report 1994 and in the unified Budget supplement.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about Mr. Graham Wyn Jones, Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Mr. Howard
  Following a review by Mr. Jeremy Gompertz QC of the evidence relating to Mr. Wyn Jones's conduct, the then Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informed my predecessor in October 1992 that he regarded Mr. Wyn Jones's behaviour as reprehensible and wholly inconsistent with what was expected of someone holding the office of Assistant Commissioner.

  The Permanent Under-Secretary of State of the Home Department heard representations from Mr. Wyn Jones in January 1993.

  My predecessor subsequently concluded that Her Majesty the Queen should be advised that Mr. Wyn Jones should no longer be regarded as fit to hold his office. I delayed putting such advice to Her Majesty so that Mr. Wyn Jones should have an opportunity to seek leave to apply for judicial review. This he did, but on 2 December 1993 the Divisional Court refused him leave.
  787
  I accordingly advised Her Majesty the Queen that Mr. Wyn Jones must be regarded as unfit to continue to hold office as an Assistant Commissioner and Her Majesty has now withdrawn his warrant of appointment. Mr. Wyn Jones has been removed from office.

  Court Escort Service
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in selecting a contractor to operate the court escort service in the Metropolitan police district.

  Mr. Howard
  On 16 February, my predecessor announced an intention to invite tenders for the provision of the court escort and custody service for the Metropolitan police district, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  After carefully considering the proposals submitted, the Prisons Board has decided to award the contract to Securicor Custodial Services Ltd. A contract will be signed before the end of the year.

  The new service will come into operation in five phases starting in July 1994, using staff who are required by statute and under the contract to be properly trained and vetted. It will release prison and police officers to concentrate on duties more appropriate to their particular skills and duties.

  Travel Documents
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in the policy and practice on the issue of Home Office travel documents.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Officials have written to the United Kingdom representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and to other interested

  Hit and run accidents involving pedestrians: 1989 to 1992

  Year of Accident

  Police Force

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Metropolitan Police

  1,578

  1,440

  1,358

  1,255

  Cumbria

  45

  38

  38

  32

  Lancashire

  152

  166

  172

  181

  Merseyside

  233

  205

  220

  232

  Greater Manchester

  512

  425

  445

  442

  Cheshire

  97

  98

  86

  80

  Northumbria

  178

  187

  170

  162

  Durham

  51

  75

  67

  60

  North Yorkshire

  79

  71

  56

  40

  West Yorkshire

  191

  231

  259

  257

  South Yorkshire

  153

  143

  133

  139

  Humberside

  89

  117

  91

  89

  Cleveland

  95

  102

  93

  69

  West Midlands

  364

  411

  424

  380

  Staffordshire

  93

  108

  87

  89

  West Mercia

  82

  79

  91

  62

  Warwickshire

  35

  28

  33

  36

  Derbyshire

  85

  89

  84

  85

  Nottinghamshire

  154

  138

  123

  113

  Lincolnshire

  33

  41

  28

  40

  Leicestershire

  85

  68

  85

  89

  Northamptonshire

  46

  40

  34

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  56

  47

  45

  59

  Norfolk

  74

  66

  63

  49

  Suffolk

  43

  44

  28

  26

  Bedfordshire

  53

  49

  27

  41

  Hertfordshire

  68

  75

  49

  58

  Essex

  121

  112

  108

  115

  Thames Valley

  180

  144

  114

  119

  Hampshire

  137

  143

  138

  144

  788
  organisations setting out changes which are to be introduced on 1 January 1994. The new arrangements clarify our policy and practice in the issue of Home Office travel documents and the charges we make for them. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Parish Constables
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made on the parish constable initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Commitments have been received from police forces and communities to 38 schemes. Twenty of these schemes will be evaluated by the Home Office.

  I am greatly encouraged by the response to this initiative, which has been very positive. Communities and police forces all over the country are engaged in a constructive process of consultation. I expect to be in a position to give an account of progress on a force by force basis early in the spring.

  Hit and Run Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police authority for the last four years, and for this year to date, the number of hit and run vehicle accidents involving pedestrians that have been reported; how many of the accidents were caused by stolen vehicles; and how many resulted in the death of the pedestrian.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of hit and run accidents involving pedestrians and the number of hit and run accidents involving pedestrian fatalities for the last four years for each police authority are given in the tables. Data for 1993 are not yet available. Information on stolen vehicles involved in injury accidents is not available.
  789

  Year of Accident

  Police Force

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Surrey

  73

  83

  70

  56

  Kent

  132

  153

  152

  120

  Sussex

  120

  135

  126

  113

  Devon and Cornwall

  130

  120

  129

  134

  Avon and Somerset

  129

  75

  99

  82

  Gloucestershire

  44

  31

  41

  41

  Wiltshire

  37

  43

  44

  39

  Dorset

  56

  60

  42

  46

  North Wales

  52

  74

  65

  59

  Gwent

  26

  14

  45

  29

  South Wales

  234

  209

  185

  171

  Dyfed-Powys

  26

  29

  48

  35

  Northern

  8

  7

  7

  9

  Grampian

  44

  35

  56

  53

  Tayside

  23

  23

  20

  17

  Fife

  20

  14

  14

  17

  Lothian and Borders

  100

  104

  86

  112

  Central

  12

  19

  17

  17

  Strathclyde

  195

  240

  220

  210

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10

  12

  8

  5

  TOTAL

  6,633

  6,460

  6,223

  5,954

  Hit and run accidents involving pedestrian fatalities: 1989 to 1992

  Year of accident

  Police force

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Metropolitan Police

  14

  14

  16

  19

  Cumbria

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Merseyside

  4

  6

  8

  2

  Greater Manchester

  7

  16

  15

  8

  Cheshire

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Northumbria

  2

  5

  6

  6

  Durham

  3

  3

  3

  0

  North Yorkshire

  2

  1

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  3

  5

  4

  3

  South Yorkshire

  2

  4

  4

  5

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  2

  1

  0

  West Midlands

  6

  6

  8

  6

  Staffordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Warwickshire

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  1

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Northamptonshire

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  2

  2

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Essex

  2

  3

  1

  0

  Thames Valley

  4

  2

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  5

  0

  3

  Surrey

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Kent

  4

  4

  3

  2

  Sussex

  3

  2

  1

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Avon and Somerset

  2

  3

  5

  4

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Dorset

  0

  1

  1

  1

  North Wales

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Gwent

  0

  0

  1

  0

  South Wales

  2

  1

  3

  6

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Northern

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Grampian

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Tayside

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian and Borders

  2

  4

  1

  1

  790

  Year of accident

  Police force

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Central

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  3

  3

  4

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  88

  109

  105

  90

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the employment status of the Under-Secretary General of the department of humanitarian affairs at the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Under-Secretary General of the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs is appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General on a fixed term contract for one year, which may be renewed by mutual agreement.

  United Nations Emergency Intervention
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what policy proposals he has to improve the co-ordination of United Nations activities in emergency intervention situations;

  (2) what proposals he has for changing the role of the department of humanitarian affairs at the United Nations;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the performance of the department of humanitarian affairs at the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The views of Her Majesty's Government on the improvement of the co-ordination of United Nations emergency relief and the performance to date and future role of the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs are set out in the address of my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to the United Nations General Assembly of 19 November 1993, a copy of which has been placed in both the Libraries of the House.

  Aid
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how British aid is helping poverty reduction in developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British aid programme, in collaboration with the World Bank and other donors, is supporting economic reform programmes in developing countries, which will set the policy framework for sustainable growth and create jobs. At the same time the Overseas Development Administration is assisting recipient governments to define and carry out their own poverty reduction strategies, to ensure that the poor benefit from economic growth. We are also providing direct assistance to the poor in developing countries, to enhance their livelihood security, increase their incomes, and improve their access to basic social services.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list payments made to each non-governmental organisation under the joint funding scheme in the last financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Details of all ODA grants made to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations under the joint funding scheme, for the financial year 1992–93, are set out in the table.

  ODA joint funding scheme grants to NGOs 1992–93

  Amount of grant awarded in financial year 1992–93

  £

  ACORD

  625,066

  ActionAid

  992,749

  Action Health 2000

  27,541

  ADD

  166,621

  ADRA

  9,213

  Africa Now

  69,283

  Africa Resource Trust

  66,118

  Aga Khan Foundation

  459,302

  AHRTAG

  280,846

  Alternative for India Development

  65,351

  AMREF

  194,642

  APT Design and Development

  153,031

  APTT Trust-United Kingdom

  4,163

  British Nepal Medical Trust

  27,260

  British Red Cross Society

  53,550

  Busoga Trust

  50,000

  CAFOD

  1,321,000

  Cambodia Trust

  160,000

  CARE Britain

  1,339,687

  Catholic Institute for International Relations

  193,825

  Childhope

  34,750

  Christian Aid

  2,231,000

  Christian Outreach

  44,771

  Christians Abroad

  5,112

  CODA International Training (CIT)

  58,022

  Commonwealth Human Ecology Council

  13,601

  Commonwealth Trade Union Council

  167,567

  Concern

  997,569

  Conservation Foundation

  74,244

  Cooperation For Development

  394,325

  Cusichaca Project Trust

  33,551

  Duke of Edinburgh Award

  39,523

  Durham-Lesotho Link

  40,692

  Feed The Minds

  14,638

  Find Your Feet

  10,370

  Food For The Hungry

  7,820

  Friends of Conservation

  63,179

  Friends of Urambo and Mwanhala

  8,791

  Gaia Foundation

  1,306

  792

  £

  Gordon Barclay Vietnam Fund

  5,481

  Halo Trust

  188,900

  Harvest Help

  34,423

  Health Aid Moyo

  84,180

  Health Unlimited

  426,935

  Hedley Roberts Trust

  13,477

  Help The Aged

  199,014

  Henry Doubleday Research Association

  17,521

  Homeless International

  90,280

  ICBP

  76,940

  Impact Foundation

  8,818

  India Development Group

  39,375

  Institute of Development Studies

  140

  International Committee for Andean Aid

  21,769

  Intercare

  43,178

  Intermediate Technology Development

  495,856

  International Agricultural Training

  27,240

  International Children's Trust

  1,717

  International Christian Relief

  102,349

  Lasallian Projects

  6,993

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  4,350

  Leprosy Mission

  12,575

  Living Earth

  178,100

  Medical Aid for Palestinians

  46,530

  Money for Madagascar

  20,649

  MSI

  993,902

  National Children's Home

  66,767

  New Age Access

  9,800

  Ockenden Venture

  36,665

  One World Action

  11,289

  OXFAM

  4,207,651

  Panos Institute

  13,550

  Plan International

  622,309

  Population Concern

  304,815

  Project Mala

  69,317

  Richmond Fellowship International

  33,566

  Rio Maza

  21,179

  Royal Commonwealth Society

  231,006

  Ryder-Cheshire Foundation

  11,441

  SALTLIC

  13,247

  Save The Children Fund

  3,531,000

  SCIAF

  131,898

  Scripture Union

  36,089

  Send A Cow

  39,417

  Skillshare Africa

  150,132

  SOS Sahel

  206,930

  South African Townships Health Fund

  80,000

  SPICMA

  24,179

  St. John Ambulance

  9,738

  Tanzania Development Trust

  191

  Tear Fund

  75,800

  Toch-H

  11,024

  Traidcraft Exchange

  130,739

  TRAX Programme Support

  9,603

  Tropical Health and Education Trust

  15,446

  TUIREG

  14,709

  Uganda Society for Disabled Children

  173,909

  United Kingdom Jewish Aid

  95,000

  UKFSP

  125,297

  University of Warwick

  21,700

  Urban Aid

  62,477

  VetAid

  47,815

  Village Service Trust

  8,501

  Vision Aid Overseas

  26,149

  VSO

  65,000

  Water Aid

  772,325

  Womankind

  120,717

  World University Service

  176,642

  World Vision

  304,450

  Worldwide Fund for Nature

  1,510,000

  Youth With A Mission

  48,411

  Y-Care International

  52,856

  Zimbabwe Trust

  552,080

  Zoological Society of London

  40,000

  TOTAL

  27,963,597

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Contractors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if he will list the work within the House that is now undertaken by private contractors.

  Mr. Channon
  Private contractors are used extensively in the provision of services to the House. The Parliamentary Works Directorate makes use of contractors and consultants for works projects funded by subheads Al, A2, and A3 of the vote for works services; and Departments of the House commission consultants and contractors to provide administrative or technical support in such fields as recruitment, training, catering and information technology. Details are a matter for the respective heads of Department.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many reports have been prepared by Clark Whitehill into the value for money achieved by the National Audit Office; what recommendations it has made for improvements; which of its reports he will make publicly available; if he will give his reasons in respect of those he will not place in the public domain; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The Public Accounts Commission appointed Clark Whitehill as external auditors of the National Audit Office on 1 April 1990 for a period of up to five years. At the request of the Commission they have so far produced two value for money reports on the National Audit Office.

  In November 1991, Clark Whitehill reported on the National Audit Office's environmental policy, monitoring and reporting. They recommended that the NAO adopt an environmental policy statement, set environmental targets and objectives, and improve monitoring of environmental legislation and European Community activities. The Comptroller and Auditor General took prompt action in response to all recommendations.

  In 1993 Clark Whitehill reviewed the National Audit Office's certification audit methods. They reported to the Commission in June 1993, and concluded that NAO methods are comparable to best practice in the auditing profession and result in efficient audits of an acceptable quality. Again, the Comptroller and Auditor General has taken action to implement the recommendations, and he reported details of progress to the Commission earlier this month. He will be reporting again in 1994.

  I have arranged for copies of both reports to be placed in the Library.

  Public Accounts Commission
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission (1) what plans he has to centralise the functions of the Audit Office by relocating the employment and training division from Sheffield to London;

  (2) what estimate he has made for the cost of relocating the employment and training division of the Audit Office from Sheffield to London; and what estimates have been made of the travelling expenses that would arise from such a relocation.
  794
  Sir Peter Hordern
  Decisions on the administration and organisation of the NAO are a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General to take within his budget, which is considered by the Public Accounts Commission on behalf of the House.

  I understand that the NAO has 15 staff in Sheffield who undertake the audit of the Department of Employment, the Employment Services Agency and a number of non-departmental public bodies. This work is carried out at various locations across the country but only 4 per cent. has to be done in Sheffield.

  As part of a continuing appraisal of the scope for improving efficiency in its audit, the NAO has decided to reorganise the handling of the work carried out from its Sheffield office. The NAO has estimated that it will achieve a net saving of £1 million over 10 years by arranging for some of the work to be undertaken by private sector accountancy firms located where the work needs to be done and by transferring responsibility for other work to its headquarters in London.

PRIME MINISTER

  Homeless People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet representatives of London's homeless people.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so at present. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction frequently meets staff of voluntary sector bodies working with homeless people in central London; and he regularly visits projects managed by these agencies.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names and job descriptions of each special ministerial adviser employed in his Department showing any particular outputs for which each adviser is responsible.

  The Prime Minister
  My special advisers are Sir Rodric Braithwaite KCMG, Mrs. Sarah Hogg, Mr. Nicholas True CBE, Mr. Damian Green, Lord Poole and Mrs. Katherine Ramsay. Their duties vary.

  Norwegian and German Prime Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 687, if he will give more specific details on the range of issues he discussed with his Norwegian and German counterparts.

  The Prime Minister
  My discussions with Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway on 16 November covered the European Community, Norwegian accession and Norway's whaling policy. In my talks with Chancellor Kohl on 25 November, we discussed problems of unemployment; growth and competitiveness within the EC; enlargement; subsidiarity and the fight against terrorism; drug trafficking and organised crime; GATT; the forthcoming NATO summit and other foreign policy issues, including Bosnia.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House. I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to ratify the chemical weapons convention before the convention enters into force.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom played an active role in the negotiations leading to the opening for signature of the chemical weapons convention and continues to play an active role in the preparatory commission in The Hague, which is working towards the establishment of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The United Kingdom signed the Convention in January 1993 and we intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to put in place the necessary legislation to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligation under the chemical weapons covention in time for Her Majesty's Government to ratify the convention by 18 July 1994.

  The Prime Minister
  We intend to introduce implementing legislation for the convention as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many press releases his office has issued in each year since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Since I took office in 1990, some 200 press releases have been issued each year. Figures for previous years would be obtainable only at disproportionate costs.

  EC Infrastructure Programmes
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out(a) the treaty powers and (b) other powers granted to the European Commission with regard to infrastructure programmes.

  The Prime Minister
  Titles XII—trans-European networks—and XIV—economic and social cohesion—of part 3 of the EC treaty, as amended by the treaty on European Union, are those principally concerned with infrastructure. The regulations governing the structural and cohesion funds—EC2080-2085/93 and EC792/93—set out the role of the Commission in this field. Articles 198d-e of the treaty refer to the European investment bank which lends to investment projects, the greater proportion of which are infrastructure improvements.

  EC Official Languages
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to seek a reduction in the number of official languages in the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to seek a reduction in the number of official languages of the European Community. It is right that legislation and judgments which apply in each member state should be officially available in the language of the citizens of that country.

  European Commission
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy regarding the number of Commissioners appropriate to an EC expanded by the four applicant countries; and by what measures he seeks to achieve such a quantity.

  The Prime Minister
  At the Brussels European Council on 10 and 11 December, all member states agreed that the EFTA applicants should be given one Commissioner each, with the question of the number of Commissioners to be reviewed at the 1996 intergovernmental conference. We have made clear our view that it would not be in the best interests, either of the Commission or of the Community as a whole, to maintain the present arrangements governing the number of Commissioners as the European Union continues to enlarge.

  Capital Markets
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Presidency conclusions as to how the capital markets can be made more efficient in order to encourage a flow of savings into productive job-creating investments.

  The Prime Minister
  Implementation of a number of directives relating to banking and financial services should facilitate the development of efficient capital markets within the Community. Member states also need to ensure that domestic capital markets encourage the flow of savings into productive job-creating investments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently announced that the Treasury is currently reviewing this area. The Economic Secretary is examining the role of banks and other financial institutions in channelling finance to industry. The Financial Secretary is examining the impact of tax and other Government policies on savings and the flow of funds through the economy. These reviews will make an important contribution to ensuring that policies in this area enhance our economic performance.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the EC directives which the Government have proposed so far should be abolished, modified or replaced on the ground of subsidiarity, setting out what has happened so far in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  In Community discussions about putting the principle of subsidiarity into effect, the Government have put forward a large number of suggestions for the amendment, repeal or withdrawal of
  797
  existing or proposed legislation. The Commission's report to the European Council last week reflected many of our suggestions and, following the European Council's endorsement, action will now begin in Brussels to put the report's recommendations into effect. A copy of the Commission's report has been made available to the House.

  New Jobs
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister what opportunities are available to the European Commission for the discovery of a source of new jobs which are not also available to national Governments.

  The Prime Minister
  As the Government stated in their contribution to the Commission's white paper, the Community's central aim must be the creation of conditions for enterprise, innovation and investment to generate wealth and employment. To achieve this the Government recommended that the Commission should ensure that the single market works effectively, that the principle of subsidiarity is put into effect and that it should undertake an audit of community legislation to remove barriers to employment. All these proposals were reflected in the conclusions of the European Council.

  National Regulations
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the European Council on the request to the European Commission to audit national regulations.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council in Brussels on 10 and 11 December adpoted a short-to-medium-term action plan to reinforce the competitiveness of the European economy, which the Council will monitor. The Council recognised the importance of a large European export-oriented market and proposed a number of measures to exploit this major asset.

  The Council recognised that legislation must be simplified and reduced in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and that consistency between national and Community legislation must be ensured. The Council requested the Commission to examine ways of creating a more favourable business environment for small and medium-sized enterprises for example, by providing for an audit of Community and national regulations in terms of their consequences for employment. Any review of national regulation will respect the competences of Community and member states and the principle of subsidiarity.

  The Government have nearly completed a comprehensive review of 3,500 regulations which impact on United Kingdom business to ensure that they do not impede our potential for wealth and job creation. We welcome similar efforts at the Community level and at member state level systematically to review legislation which impairs the competitiveness of European industries and Europe's potential for economic growth and employment.

  EC Voting Procedures
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister what powers he has to prevent any dilution of the blocking minority under qualified majority voting procedures; and to what extent such powers are constrained by the presidency conclusions.
  798
  The Prime Minister
  Any change to the qualified majority voting procedures must be agreed by all member states. The question of the blocking minority threshold in an enlarged Community was not resolved at the European Council held in Brussels on 10 and 11 December.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister to what extent additional loans from the European investment bank will be underwritten by other EC institutions.

  The Prime Minister
  The European investment bank is required by its statute to lend only if it has a guarantee from a member state or other adequate guarantees, such as from a commercial bank. It is not the practice, nor is it intended, for Community institutions to guarantee EIB loans within the European Community.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence she has of farmers having used fields subject to set-aside payments for car boot sales.

  Mr. Jack
  Car boot sales can be held on land set aside under the non-agricultural use option of the voluntary five year set-aside scheme; payments under this option are reduced to reflect the fact that the farmer may be earning some income from the land. In certain, strictly defined circumstances, car boot sales may also be permitted on some other land set aside under the five year scheme and the arable area payments scheme. In all cases, it is the farmer's responsibility to obtain any planning permission that may be required.

  The information which we have about the numbers of car boot sales on set-aside land is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Forestry Commission
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to sell off any woods owned by the Forestry Commission in East Anglia under the current disposal programme.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission has no forest land on the market at present in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire or Essex.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she intends to introduce to implement article 12(4) of the EC habitats and species directive (92/43/EEC) which requires member states to ensure that incidental capture and killing of dolphins, whales and other cetaceans in fishing gear does not endanger the population of those species.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 26 October, Official Report, column 567.

  Sea Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she intends to introduce to monitor the incidental entanglement of sea birds in fishing gear and to ensure that populations of those sea birds do not become endangered.

  Mr. Jack
  The sea fisheries inspectorate is instructed to report immediately any major incidents of sea birds being caught in fishing gear. They also make an annual report. There is no evidence to suggest that cases of entrapment, which are rare, are currently threatening the survival of any species of sea bird.

  Forestry, Hillsborough
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to sell any of the Forestry Commission woods in the constituency of Sheffield, Hillsborough under the current disposal programme.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission has no forest land on the market at present in the hon. Member's constituency.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what her Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if she will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992;

  (2) which of the appointments made to public bodies by her Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Jack
  Executive search consultants are occasionally used to find candidates for full-time executive appointments or other major appointments. Since April 1992, no consultants have been used for this purpose, and none of the public body posts, for which this Department has responsibility, has been advertised.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to release grant and aid payments to those sheep farmers who have not yet received their sheep annual premium; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Payment of the first and second advance of premium under the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme in the United Kingdom has already been made in respect of 82 per cent. of the claims received. Outstanding advance payments will be made to producers as soon as we are satisfied that the claims meet the requirements of the scheme.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press releases her Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of press releases issued by MAFF over recent years is as follows.800

  Number

  1980

  488

  1981

  439

  1982

  482

  1983

  400

  1984

  458

  1985

  380

  1986

  357

  1987

  403

  1988

  526

  1989

  568

  1990

  515

  1991

  582

  1992

  532

  11993

  506

  1Up to December 14 1993.

  Figures for 1979 are not available.

  One-Net Rule
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decision she has reached following her consultation exercise on the application of the one-net rule.

  Mr. Jack
  We had hoped that the EC would agree on a Community wide rule that only one type of net should be carried on a fishing trip. This would have been a useful measure to support enforcement of technical conservation rules. Unfortunately, no agreement has been reached in the EC on this issue. We therefore consulted the industry on the way forward.

  A range of views was put to us, but a significant proportion of the United Kingdom industry believed that we should not continue unilaterally to apply a one-net rule in the United Kingdom, and should discontinue it unless and until an EC-wide measure was introduced.

  We have decided to accept that view: it would not be reasonable for our industry to be more tightly regulated in this regard than its competitors from other EC countries fishing in the same waters.

  The one-net rule will therefore end on 31 December 1993.

  Lambs
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she proposes to take to improve the protection of orphan lambs in markets.

  Mr. Soames
  A new order has been made under the Animal Health Act 1981 which gives additional protection to young lambs and goat kids at livestock markets. From 1 January 1994, the amount of time unaccompanied lambs and goat kids under four weeks of age can spend in a livestock market will be limited to four hours. While at the market they must be housed in solid sided draught free pens and provided with dry bedding. A further provision to ban lambs and goat kids from markets if they have an unhealed navel will come into force on 1 January 1995.

  The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 already lays down certain other provisions to protect unaccompanied lambs under four weeks of age at markets. This legislation specifies that these animals must be housed under cover in bedded accommodation, and also precludes sick lambs from being exposed for sale. These provisions also apply to goat kids.

  Bananas
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to prevent the smuggling of dollar bananas into the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: Controls of imports of bananas apply at the first point of entry into the Community. Licences are required for all imports from third countries. In the single European market, once bananas have been cleared into free circulation anywhere in the Community they may be traded freely. National controls on the entry of dollar bananas already entered into free circulation by another member state are not permitted.

  Average indebtedness of specialist sheep and mixed cattle and sheep farms wholly or mainly in the Less Favoured Areas in England1

  SDA specialist sheep farms2

  SDA mixed cattle and sheep farms2

  DA cattle and sheep farms3

  Accounting year4

  Total external liabilities (£ thousands per farm)

  External liabilities as a percentage of total assets (Per cent.)

  Total external liabilities (£ thousands per farm)

  External liabilities as a percentage of total assets (Per cent.)

  Total external liabilities (£ thousands per farm)

  External liabilities as a percentage of total assets (Per cent.)

  1986–87

  28..7

  14.0

  36.0

  14.0

  36.9

  16.0

  1987–88

  28.3

  15.0

  35.3

  13.0

  35.8

  16.0

  1988–89

  28.5

  14.0

  36.2

  13.0

  30.1

  13.0

  1989–90

  32.9

  15.0

  43.6

  13.0

  34.8

  13.0

  1990–91

  28.4

  14.0

  48.1

  15.0

  21.3

  8.0

  1991–92

  24.5

  12.0

  43.3

  14.0

  20.4

  8.0

  1992–93 (provisional)

  28.6

  14.0

  39.0

  12.0

  30.7

  10.0

  1 All data based on closing valuations.

  2 SDA farms must have at least half of their area in the LFA and at least half of that in the SDA.

  3 DA farms must have at least half of their area in the LFA and more than half of that in the DA.

  4 Ending on average in mid-February.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how many full-time hired workers are employed on farm holdings in the less-favoured areas; and if she will provide a breakdown by country according to the most recent figures for each year since 1982.

  Regular full-time hired workers on holdings1 in less favoured areas2 in England at June each year by county

  County3

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  41986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  6

  6

  5

  6

  107

  99

  84

  78

  79

  73

  66

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  12

  19

  13

  19

  21

  21

  19

  18

  20

  19

  16

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  33

  37

  38

  38

  264

  255

  238

  218

  211

  194

  186

  Cumbria

  507

  510

  475

  448

  627

  584

  599

  562

  542

  536

  506

  Derbyshire

  171

  150

  136

  117

  198

  184

  167

  181

  177

  158

  158

  Devon

  179

  164

  159

  145

  385

  408

  445

  420

  393

  402

  393

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  171

  157

  150

  145

  331

  261

  281

  268

  242

  238

  247

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  77

  55

  56

  57

  85

  86

  69

  64

  57

  55

  65

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  132

  119

  109

  98

  291

  269

  250

  244

  226

  228

  222

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater London (E)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater London (SE)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Farming Debts
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has on the level of indebtedness among(a) specialist sheep farmers and (b) mixed cattle and sheep farmers in the (i) severely disadvantaged areas and (ii) disadvantaged areas for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: The farm business survey provides data on indebtedness from a sample of farm businesses in England. Results for the new farm classification are available only from 1986–87 onwards. The table shows the average level of total liabilities per farm and expresses this as a proportion of average total assets.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: The number of full-time hired farm workers employed on farm holdings in the less favoured areas by county in each year since 1982 is shown in the table.
  803

  County3

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  41986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

  648

  645

  622

  586

  1,070

  994

  919

  879

  809

  738

  694

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  202

  193

  191

  184

  252

  237

  220

  205

  192

  189

  181

  Somerset

  142

  134

  110

  103

  139

  117

  109

  104

  94

  81

  76

  Staffordshire

  28

  32

  23

  23

  126

  114

  102

  101

  99

  86

  95

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  15

  20

  21

  30

  31

  25

  19

  23

  36

  42

  32

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  18

  7

  7

  6

  40

  34

  44

  43

  34

  39

  34

  North Yorkshire

  464

  418

  406

  393

  549

  554

  534

  496

  478

  484

  440

  West Yorkshire

  128

  97

  107

  116

  194

  202

  192

  188

  258

  197

  206

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England

  2,933

  2,763

  2,628

  2,514

  4,710

  4,444

  4,291

  4,092

  3,947

  3,759

  3,617

  Source: June census of agriculture and horticulture each year.

  1. Minor holdings are excluded.

  2. Workers on holdings with either all or part of their land in the less favoured areas have been included.

  3. Some counties have been merged to preserve confidentiality.

  4. A re-definition of the LFA occurred in 1986.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of producers entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances by county and local authority subdivisions, distinguishing between those located in severely disadvantaged areas and disadvantaged areas.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: The table shows the most up to date information available on the number of claims paid under the 1993 hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme from producing farming eligible land wholly within the severely disadvantaged area—SDA—or the disadvantaged area—DA—or on mixed land—SDA combined with DA land. There are also about 4,000 holdings in the United Kingdom which consist of SDA or DA land plus other land. Most of the claims expected for the 1993 scheme have by now been received.

  SDA

  DA

  Mixed

  England

  Cheshire

  97

  26

  38

  Cleveland

  5

  13

  4

  Cornwall

  53

  508

  118

  Cumbria

  1,477

  368

  852

  Derbyshire

  591

  166

  146

  Devon

  713

  629

  115

  Durham

  448

  132

  107

  Greater Manchester

  110

  67

  32

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  180

  121

  100

  Lancashire

  409

  425

  286

  Northumberland

  582

  139

  248

  North Yorkshire

  932

  396

  701

  Scilly Isles

  7

  Nil

  Nil

  Shropshire

  365

  118

  229

  Somerset

  234

  25

  36

  South Yorkshire

  44

  56

  32

  Staffordshire

  204

  243

  93

  Tyne and Wear

  Nil

  11

  Nil

  West Yorkshire

  549

  114

  98

  Wales

  Gwynedd

  1,179

  744

  542

  804

  SDA

  DA

  Mixed

  South Glamorgan

  4

  1

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  336

  39

  63

  West Glamorgan

  161

  84

  50

  Gwent

  270

  278

  59

  Dyfed

  1,272

  1,854

  769

  Powys

  2,840

  281

  701

  Clwyd

  909

  85

  345

  Northern Ireland

  Antrim

  1,184

  1,212

  612

  Armagh

  623

  1,346

  376

  Down

  724

  835

  683

  Fermanagh

  3,070

  82

  114

  Londonderry

  1,222

  735

  502

  Tyrone

  2,550

  1,568

  854

  Scotland1

  SDA & Mixed

  DA

  Aberdeen

  756

  177

  Angus

  143

  13

  Argyll

  1,042

  Nil

  Ayr

  726

  103

  Banff

  378

  47

  Berwick

  142

  15

  Bute

  42

  4

  Bute Arran

  86

  Nil

  Caithness

  729

  Nil

  Clackmannan

  14

  Nil

  Dumfries

  685

  15

  Dunbarton

  88

  14

  Fife

  103

  7

  Inverness

  2,516

  3

  Kincardine

  154

  16

  Kinross

  45

  4

  Kirkcudbright

  557

  2

  Lanark

  582

  58

  Lothian, East

  38

  4

  Lothian, Mid

  115

  Nil

  Lothian, West

  53

  4

  Moray

  157

  4

  Nairn

  55

  2

  Orkney

  906

  Nil

  Peebles

  180

  4

  Perth

  573

  22

  805

  SDA & Mixed

  DA

  Renfrew

  170

  3

  Ross

  2,458

  20

  Roxburgh

  280

  11

  Selkirk

  115

  Nil

  Stirling

  208

  16

  Sutherland

  715

  Nil

  Wigtown

  413

  30

  Zetland

  1,530

  Nil

  1 For statistical purposes, claims in Scotland are classified as relating to Severely Disadvantaged and mixed land if they cover any severely disadvantaged land.

HEALTH

  GP Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average level of funding per capita allocated by each regional health authority to district health

  Region

  Mental illness expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Per cent. of total

  £

  £

  £

  Northern

  151,378,056

  1,073,970,006

  14.00

  Yorkshire

  144,658,241

  1,230,231,970

  11.75

  Trent

  180,272,375

  1,541,372,674

  11.69

  East Anglian

  94,477,404

  638,876,984

  14.78

  North West Thames

  184,718,170

  1,378,278,559

  13.40

  North East Thames

  198,692,023

  1,461,683,860

  13.59

  South East Thames

  167,543,458

  1,394,960,544

  12.00

  South West Thames

  175,275,593

  1,176,983,444

  14.89

  Wessex

  101,116,358

  860,078,849

  11.75

  Oxford

  88,973,153

  759,287,989

  11.71

  South Western

  119,137,120

  1,099,303,848

  10.83

  West Midlands

  182,282,830

  1,559,521,546

  11.68

  Mersey

  116,670,000

  888,269,765

  13.13

  North Western

  180,776,909

  1,475,731,484

  12.24

  TOTAL

  2,085,971,690

  16,538,551,522

  12.61

  Notes:

  1. This information is available on a DHA purchaser basis from the financial returns completed by health authorities.

  2. Mental illness includes elderly mentally ill, speciality functions—mental illness, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, psychotherapy, old age psychiatry; Services include community mental illness services, single speciality hospitals and units on district general hospitals sites.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications a nurse would be expected to have in order to carry out(a) immunisations, (b) vaccinations and (c) home assessments of elderly people.

  Mr. Sackville
  These activities may be carried out independently by a first level registered nurse with additional and appropriate training, or by a first or second level nurse under the direction of a qualified medical or nursing practitioner.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for the last four years, the number of(a) practice nurses and (b) community nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  806
  authorities in 1993–94 for purchasing the range of services covered by the fund-holding scheme on behalf of patients in non-fund-holding general practitioner practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of each regional health authority's total expenditure is spent on activities relating to mental health.

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows for 1991–92, the latest date for which complete information is available, the amount spent on purchasing mental illness services as a proportion of total expenditure on health services purchased.

  Practice nurses as at 1 October each year England

  Whole-time equivalents

  Year

  Number

  1989

  4,630

  1990

  7,740

  1991

  8,780

  1992

  9,120

  Note: Figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Community nurses by speciality as at 30 September each year England

  Whole-time equivalents

  Year

  Number

  1989

  39,790

  1990

  41,240

  1991

  40,650

  1992

  40,750

  Note: Figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost of a prescription to a pregnant mother in each member country of the European Community;

  Cost of a prescription in European Community member states

  Pensioner

  Maternity

  Belgium

  Free for certain specified illnesses.

  Free for certain specified illnesses.

  15 per cent. of cost up to a limit of 200 Belgian francs for certain drugs.

  25 per cent. of cost up to a limit of 300 Belgian francs for certain drugs.

  25 per cent. of cost up to a limit of 300 Belgian francs for other drugs.

  50 per cent. of cost up to a limit of 500 Belgian francs for other drugs.

  Denmark

  Free for insulin.

  Free.

  25 per cent. of cost of certain drugs.

  25 per cent. of cost.

  50 per cent. of cost of other drugs.

  50 per cent. of cost.

  France

  Free for certain specified illnesses.

  Free.

  35 per cent. of cost of certain drugs.

  65 per cent. of other drugs.

  Germany

  15 per cent. of cost of cheaper drugs.

  Free.

  For more expensive drugs free up to a specified limit but full cost between the limit and the retail price.

  Greece.

  Free for certain specified illnesses.

  Free.

  25 per cent. of drug cost.

  25 per cent. of cost.

  Ireland

  Free for certain specified illnesses.

  Free.

  Free for those on low income.

  Free.

  Full price of drug up to £360 pa (Irish Punt).

  Full price.

  Italy

  Free for certain specified illnesses.

  Free.

  Free for life-saving prescribed drugs.

  Free.

  Free for those on low incomes.

  Free.

  2,000 Lire per item below income ceiling.

  2,000 Lire.

  First 40,000 Lire of prescription cost in full plus 10 per cent. of any additional cost if above income ceiling.

  First 40,000 Lire plus 10 per cent. of cost.

  Luxembourg

  Free for certain prescribed drugs.

  Free.

  20 per cent. of the drug cost.

  Netherlands

  Free.

  Free.

  Contribution for more expensive drugs.

  Contribution.

  Portugal

  Free for certain specified illnesses.

  Free.

  15 per cent. for certain drugs for those on low incomes.

  15 per cent.

  45 per cent. for other drugs for those on low incomes.

  45 per cent.

  20 per cent. for certain drugs.

  20 per cent.

  50 per cent. for other drugs.

  50 per cent.

  Spain

  Free.

  40 per cent. of drug cost.

  United Kingdom

  Free.

  Free.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 December,Official Report, columns 706-7, what assessment she has made of the problems with standards in other countries, most recently Germany; and if she will now institute a ban on imports of blood and blood products from countries which use paid donors.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the Medicines Act 1968 every company which manufactures blood products for marketing in the United Kingdom is inspected and licensed and individual products are licensed for safety, quality and efficacy. Blood or plasma collected overseas for processing into blood products which are to be imported into the United Kingdom under United Kingdom product licence is subjected to the rigorous screening tests that are required by our licensing authority. Furthermore all plasma pools from which any blood product released in this country is produced are tested for viral markers by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. No blood is imported and in the light of these safeguards we do not propose to ban imports of blood products.
  808
  (2) what is the cost of a prescription to an old-age pensioner in each member country of the European Community.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Hospitals (Use)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which view will prevail where there is a fundamental difference of opinion between health and industry purchasers and fund-holding general practitioners about the use of a particular hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fund-holders have the freedom to purchase the best possible care for their patients from whichever hospital they judge best. They are however required to share their broad purchasing intentions with district health authorities in advance to enable provider units to plan effectively.

  Charing Cross Hospital
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether Charing Cross hospital, as it is presently equipped and staffed, will be able to meet the requirements as the focal point of all west London cancer services; and what extra expenditure will be required in order for it to do so.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No specific studies of the capacity of the Charing Cross site for cancer services have been carried out. However, the Hammersmith/Charing Cross relocation
  809
  group is studying the possible relocation of all the services of the Hammersmith and Charing Cross (including cancer services) on to one site.

  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received from the international medical community in connection with the future of the Royal Marsden hospital; and if she will list them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Representations were received from the following.

  International Medical Community Representations in Connection with the Royal Marsden

  Sophie D. Fossa

  Professor Harry Bartelink, MD, PhD

  Assistant Professor Simon Powell, MRCP, FRCR, PhD

  Professor V. Craig Jordan, PhD, DSc

  Director of Institute of Oncology, Slovenia

  Barrie D. Evans, MD, MRCP, FRACP, BDS

  A. H. G. Paterson, MD

  Soo Khee Chee

  Dr. Khoo Tan Hoon Seng, MB, BS, FRCR

  Dr. Joseph T. S. Wee, MB, BS, FRCR

  Dr. Chua Eu Tiong

  Dr. Thida San

  Dr. Kam Weng Fong, FRCR

  Dr. Tsoa Shiu Ying

  Dr. Chua Eu Jin

  Dr. Kim Shang Lee, FRCR

  Hong Ga Sze

  A. W. Thomas, BSc, MTech, FBCS

  Richard G. Margolese, MD, FRCS

  Professor Victor Ling

  Professor Karen Antman, MD

  Professor Robert C. Hickey, MD

  Teenage Advertising
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of cigarette advertising upon teenage take-up of smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government believe that tobacco advertising does have an effect on consumption. This is why successive Governments over the last 22 years have controlled tobacco advertising by a system of voluntary agreements. The Government have not made any estimate of the effect of tobacco advertising on teenagers compared to the effect on the population as a whole.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region and by date of closure all former NHS hospitals closed since 1986 and their current use.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Animal Diseases
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she proposes to monitor the re-emergence in the United Kingdom of previously eliminated diseases, following the free movement of animals;

  (2) if she will hold immediate talks with the Minister of Agriculture about methods of preventing the re-emergence of brucellosis in rural constituencies.
  810
  Mr. Sackville
  Though brucellosis in humans is not a statutorily notifiable disease, there is a laboratory reporting system which receives between 10 and 30 reports each year. The Department works closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on all aspects of brucellosis and other diseases which can be transmitted from animals to humans including their prevention. This liaison takes full account of all developments including the free movement of animals.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals charge other hospitals for X-rays and other medical records for patients who transfer between hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been filed under the clinical complaints procedure against hospitals neglecting to pass on to third parties medical records of patients treated by them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dental Services, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists working in the London borough of Wandsworth provide full NHS dental services at the latest convenient date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hypnotherapy
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce measures to regulate hypnotherapists and related practitioners.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. We welcome, however, the efforts of reputable training institutes in hypnotherapy, as in other areas of complementary therapy, to develope standards of training, voluntary registration and certification of hypnotherapists.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private residential care homes were inspected in the Greater London area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The inspection of private and voluntary residential care homes is the responsibility of local authorities under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Clinical Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the operation of the clinical complaints procedure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 June at columns 552-53 the setting up of a review of the national health service complaints

  811
  procedures. All aspects of national health service complaints procedures, including the clinical complaints procedure, are being examined and a report is expected in the new year.

  Credit Approvals
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what credit approvals she is making available for personal social services for 1994–95.

  Mr. Bowis
  Basic credit approvals of £114.2 million and supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) of £26.1 million will be available for the personal social services for 1994–95. The total of £140.3 million is an increase of 2.0 per cent. in real terms on 1993–94. SCAs will again be available for information technology for community care (£12.2 million), mental illness (£10.9 million) and AIDS/HIV services (£3 million). Annual capital guidelines will be £121.2 million.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest she has approved for the fifth wave of NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have given permission to eight units to prepare National Health Service trust applications in the fifth wave. They are as listed. Further expressions of interest are expected. This wave of NHS trusts will mean that the separation of organisations responsible for the purchasing and providing of hospital and community health services could be virtually complete from April 1995.

  The expressions of interest are as follows:

  West Midlands regional health authority

  Solihull Hospital (withdrew application in the fourth wave);

  Wolverhampton Primary Healthcare;

  South Birmingham Acute;

  Trent regional health authority

  Fosse Health (Glenfrith Unit);

  South West Thames regional health authority

  Pathfinder (Wandsworth Mental Health);

  North East Thames regional health authority

  Essex and Herts Community;

  Essex and Herts Acute;

  Homerton.

  A complete list of those directly managed units not awaiting decisions in the fourth wave has been placed in the Library. This list updates information my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 16 June 1993 at columns 617-18.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the NHS Supplies Agency has achieved since it was set up; and what savings it has achieved for the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since it was established, the National Health Service Supplies Authority has brought together over 70 separate local supplies organisations, providing better value for money for its NHS customers.
  812
  Better buying has already achieved savings of £60 million, and a further £25 million of savings are targeted by March 1994.

  Operating costs have been reduced by about £15 million through a 10 per cent. reduction in staffing, closure of unnecessary stores, and rationalisation of information technology and other services. Service efficiency has improved in terms of faster order responses and stock turnover, and better financial and management control.

  These improvements mean that more resources are now available for patient care.

  Support Tights
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will add support tights to items available on prescription.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. General practitioners are already able to prescribe a suitable range of compression hosiery.

  Asthma
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from asthma occurred in each district health authority in England, and in total, in the latest available year.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used in the selection of the chair and the executive members of(a) NHS trusts, (b) regional health authorities, (c) district health authorities and (d) family health authorities in respect of relevant experience and qualifications; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Chairmen of health authorities and national health service trusts are appointed for their personal qualities, knowledge and skills and for the contribution they can bring to the strategic leadership of their authority or trust. The selection of executive members of health authorities and executive directors of trusts is a matter for each individual health body.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) NHS trusts; what guidelines she has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The maximum number of board members of regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities and national health service trusts is eleven. The composition of NHS authorities and trusts is laid down in the Regional and District Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990, the Family Health Services Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990, and the NHS Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990. These requirements are summarised in guidance issued to authorities and trusts.
  813
  Chairmen of regional health authorities have been asked to make efforts to increase the proportion of women appointed as chairmen and non-executive members of NHS authorities and trusts under the Opportunity 2000 programme. Ministers have also reminded RHA chairmen that they are committed to appointing able people from ethnic minorities as chairmen and non-executive members of NHS authorities and trusts. There is no specific guidance on the number of appointments from particular groups.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if she will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of suitable candidates for appointment as chairmen and non-executive members of health authorities and national health service trusts come from a variety of sources. These may include nominations resulting from the use by regional health authorities of executive search consultants. Those who are appointed to health authority or trust boards are appointed for their personal skills and qualities. No details are available centrally on the use of consultants for such appointments.

  The use of executive search consultants for appointment to executive, advisory and tribunal non-departmental public bodies is an option but to date we have not used any such services. The Department's aim is to appoint people from a broad range of different backgrounds. Many professional and voluntary bodies are consulted when appointments are made to public bodies.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total numbers of chairpersons and non-executive board members of(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) national health service trusts in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of chairmen and the maximum number of non-executive members of health authorities and national health service trusts are shown in the table. Fourth wave NHS trusts are not included in these figures.

  Body

  Number of chairmen posts

  Number of non-executive members/directors posts

  Regional health authorities

  14

  70

  District health authorities

  141

  705

  Family health services authorities

  90

  810

  NHS trusts

  292

  1,440

  Evening Daylight
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has undertaken as to the likely improvements in the nation's health which would be afforded by an extra hour's evening daylight for outdoor sport and recreation.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases her Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the years 1979 to 1988 is not available.

  The number of press releases issued from 1989 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  575

  1990

  632

  1991

  638

  1992

  471

  11993

  651

  1To 13 December.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1984–85 is not available. Annual spend for the financial years 1985–86 to 1992–93 is:

  £ million

  1985–86

  3.106

  1986–87

  7.969

  1987–88

  6.494

  1988–89

  3.724

  1989–90

  7.280

  1990–91

  4.797

  1991–92

  8.058

  1992–93

  5.053

  Spend to date for 1993–94 is £885,000, a monthly breakdown is not available.

  Past campaigns have included drug and solvent misuse, organ donation, health of the nation, patients charter and blood donor recruitment.

  Patient Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will update the table provided on 4 November,Official Report, column 459, on patient complaints, to include 1992–93 figures.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not yet available centrally.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1)what is the average estimated cost of one day's sickness absence within the national health service;

  (2) what was the total number of days sickness absence within the national health service for (a)1992–93 and (b)1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cornwall Community Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will bear the cost of defending the unfair dismissal case brought by the former chairman of the Cornwall Community healthcare trust, Admiral Sir Godfrey Milton-Thompson, and of the ex gratia settlement to him.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have already done so.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will defend any action brought by the former chairman of the Cornwall community healthcare trust, Mrs. Abigail Kirby-Harris, and will be prepared to entertain any claim made by her.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No action has been filed against the Department by Mrs. Abigail Kirby-Harris. We see no reason why it should be.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure by her Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by her Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in 1992–93 prices; and what is her estimate for expenditure on administration by her Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are shown in the table.

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Cash

  276

  265

  At 1992–93 prices

  276

  257

  Planned expenditure for 1994–95 will be published in the unified Budget supplement.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the changes in the Budget on sick pay will cost the national health service for its own staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A precise estimate of the effect of this change has not been made. The £l.6 billion the Government have given the national health service over original plans for 1993–94 allows for an overall assessment of the effect of this and other cost pressures on the health service. It is not helpful to identify specific sums for individual pressures the size of which will vary from hospital to hospital. Provided pay rises are earned through increased efficiency the hospital and community health service will be able to treat around 4 per cent. more patients next year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the number of appeals against council tax property banding, (b) the number rejected and (c) the number submitted subsequently to the appeals tribunal and the number of those granted.
  816
  Mr. Baldry
  As regards the first part of his question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning gave to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on 15 December 1993.

  As regards the remainder, proposals from taxpayers for amendment of bandings are transmitted to valuation tribunals at the end of six months, unless in the meantime they have been withdrawn or agreement has been reached in discussions between the Valuation Office Agency and the taxpayer. The Valuation Office Agency will however continue such discussions even after transmission to the valuation tribunal with the aim of achieving a satisfactory settlement. Only where this proves impossible is a case heard by a valuation tribunal.

  By 30 November 1993, 500,210 proposals had been transmitted in this way to valuation tribunal offices, and 62 had been the subject of a tribunal hearing. Information on the decisions of individual tribunals is not collected centrally.

  Environmental Protection (Grants)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regional aid grants for protection and data collection on the environment have been awarded in the current year by the European Commission to county, district or metropolitan local authorities in 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  Funds are available from the European Community for protection and data collection on the environment. However, the information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Gummer
  My Department spent the following amounts on heating fuel during the financial years indicated:

  Gas £

  Oil £

  Total £

  1990–91

  221,896

  409,261

  631,157

  1991–92

  267,651

  298,658

  566,309

  1992–93

  354,897

  168,736

  523,633

  These figures exclude expenditure on the royal parks and palaces which transferred from my Department in 1992.

  Total figures for 1989–90 and individual figures for offices since 1990–91 to date can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sellafield (Emissions)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what stage Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was informed of the revised figures for plutonium emissions from Sellafield prepared by British Nuclear Fuels' corporate environmental adviser; what action Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution intends to take in the light of these revised figures; and if he will make a statement.
  817
  Mr. Yeo
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) received a copy of the expert evidence prepared by Professor Stephen Jones of BNFL on 9 November 1992. This reassessment of historical discharges has no impact on current operations at Sellafield and HMIP will not be taking any action in the light of this information.

  Habitats
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his plans for implementation of the EC habitats and species directive will give protection to important wildlife sites additional to that provided under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Yeo
  All land-based sites designated as special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive will have already been designated as SSSIs and subject to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Additional measures required to meet the site protection requirements of the EC habitats directive, including those required for conservation of the marine environment, are set out in the Government's public consultation paper, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 189, whether he has committed his Department to regular meetings with the statutory nature conservation bodies specifically on the transposition of the EC habitats and species directive since 16 November.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department is in continual contact with the statutory nature conservation agencies about the EC habitats directive. Regular meetings and frequent ad hoc contacts will continue as work on transposition proceeds.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to implement those parts of the EC habitats directive relating to favourable conservation status outside protected areas such as sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Yeo
  We already have in place a number of policies and programmes to promote the conservation of wildlife in the wider countryside, for example, environmentally sensitive areas, countryside stewardship, species recovery programmes, forestry policies. These will be taken forward in the context of the biodiversity action plan to be published in January after the House returns.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will appoint a lead agency in each country to oversee the implementation of the EC habitats and species directive.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are responsible for implementation of the EC habitats directive, advised by the relevant country Nature Conservation Agency (English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, or the Countryside Council for Wales). Amendments to the powers and duties of Government, the nature conservation agencies and other bodies thought necessary to secure full implementation of the directive, were set out in the Government's recent public consultation paper, the responses to which are being considered. A copy of the consultation paper has been deposited in the House Library.
  818
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to safeguard threatened peatbogs under the EC habitats and species directive.

  Mr. Yeo
  A number of peatland habitat types are listed on annex I of the EC habitats directive, signifying that they are habitat types of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation (SACs).

  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the country nature conservation agencies are currently working on their advice on the national list of sites to be submitted to the Commission by June 1995. It is too early to name sites likely to appear on this list, but peatland sites will be included in accordance with the directive's criteria.

  As stated in the consultation paper issued on 4 October, the Government is committed to introducing regulations to implement the directive, including the site protection requirements of article 6.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the revenue support grant paid over annually to metropolitan councils to support public transport projects in passenger transport authorities areas since 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  Revenue support grant is paid to local authorities to help meet general revenue expenditure. It is based on an assessment of each authority's overall need to spend in order to provide a standard level of service known as the standard spending assessment or SSA. It is distributed so that, if all authorities were to spend at the level of their SSA, they could set broadly the same level of council tax, for properties in a given valuation band.

  The grant is not intended to be used in any prescribed way, it is not, therefore, possible to identify a particular portion of the total grant as being related to any particular type of service.

  Irish Sea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received on the reconnaissance marine aggregrate resource assessment of the Irish sea conducted by the Crown estate.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Crown estate commissioned the British Geological Survey (BGS) to undertake a desk study of information on marine aggregate resources on an area in the Irish sea and BGS has recently published the results of this study. A copy has been sent to my Department.

  Unitary Local Authorities
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new unitary authorities he plans to create; and how many will straddle review areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information will not be available until the Local Government Commission has made recommendations to my right hon. Friend about local government structure for all the shire counties of England; and Parliament has approved all the orders, to be made under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992, giving effect to those recommendations.
  819
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to make York and Harrogate unitary local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission is due to complete its final report to my right hon. Friend on the structure of local government in Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire by 23 January 1994. Once the commission has published its report, my right hon. Friend will consider its recommendations and any representations which he receives about them, before taking any decision about the future structure of local government in North Yorkshire.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to monitor the implementation of the biodiversity action plan and national sustainability strategy and to review arrangements where necessary.

  Mr. Yeo
  We aim to publish our biodiversity action plan and our sustainable development strategy after the House reassembles in the new year. Those documents will outline arrangements for implementation and monitoring.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom biodiversity action plan is due to be published after the House returns in January.

  Passenger Transport
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local services are funded by a precept.

  Mr. Baldry
  Services provided by county councils, metropolitan police authorities, fire and civil defence authorities, and local precepting authorities, such as parish councils, may be the subject of precepts.

  Green Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to support collaborative research work with the winners of the Green Initiative awards supported by the Local Government Chronicle to assist their commercial implementation.

  Mr. Yeo
  I was very pleased to be able to present the awards and certificates to the winners of Green Initiative sponsored by KPMG and the Local Government Chronicle, and my Department will be happy to continue its support for the 1994 competition. We have no plans jointly to commission research with the winners, though we shall be interested to follow the progress of their schemes.

  Seals
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest estimates by the sea mammals research unit of the numbers of grey and common seals in England and Wales.

  Mr. Yeo
  The estimates for 1992 are 9,700 grey seals and 1,700 common seals in England and Wales.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the findings of the scientific report into cryptosporidium.

  Mr. Yeo
  The drinking water inspectorate has completed its assessment of two incidents, in March-April 1992 and October-November 1992, involving the detection of low levels of cryptosporidium in the water supplied from Broadfields treatment works, Isle of Wight. The inspectorate will be writing shortly to Southern Water Services Ltd. setting out its conclusions and recommendations on each incident. Copies of these letters will be sent to the local authorities, district health authorities and customer service committee concerned, to the Office of Water Services and others who have expressed an interest. I will send the hon. Member copies.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of(a) urban development corporations, (b) housing action trusts and (c) the Housing Corporation; what guidelines he has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many board members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions;

  (2) what are the minimum and maximum numbers of board members of English Partnerships; what guidelines he has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many board members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions.

  Mr. Baldry
  Schedule 26 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, Schedule 6 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, Schedule 7 of the Housing Act 1988 and Schedule 17 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 set out the statutory requirements for making appointments to urban development corporations, the Housing Corporation, housing action trusts and English Partnerships (Urban Regeneration Agency), respectively.

  The minimum number of board members required, by statute, by an urban development corporation is a chairman and deputy chairman and five members, the maximum is a chairman and deputy chairman and 11 members. The minimum number of board members required, by statute, by a housing action trust is a chairman and five members, the maximum is a chairman and 11 members. The maximum number of board members required by the Housing Corporation is 15. The minimum number of board members required, by statute, for English Partnerships is six, including a chairman; no maximum number is specified.

  Appointments to my Department's public bodies are made from people of all backgrounds and walks of life. In the light of the founding legislation for urban development corporations and housing action trusts, local business people and local authority members are commonly appointed to these boards.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used in the selection of the
  821
  chair and the executive members of (a) the Housing Corporation, (b) English Partnerships and (c) the urban development corporations, in respect of relevant experience and qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  When making appointments to the boards of these bodies my right hon. Friend has regard to the range of skills and expertise necessary for the boards to carry out their functions effectively.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the United Kingdom "Strategy to Limit Climate Change".

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on 3 December 1993 at column 764.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to ratify(a) the biodiversity convention and (b) the climate change convention agreed at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 2 December 1993 at column 654 and to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on 3 December 1993 at column 764.

  Central European Time
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of the likely effect of a move to central European time on energy consumption and consequently on carbon dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is estimated but subject to considerable uncertainty that a change to single double summer time (i.e. GMT+1 in the winter and GMT+2 in summer) might slightly increase overall energy consumption and result in extra CO2 emissions of up to 0.1 million tonnes of carbon a year.

  Conservation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a statutory provision to provide for the production of management plans for all designated special areas for conservation.

  Mr. Yeo
  The EC habitats directive requires member states to establish appropriate management plans for special areas of conservation if need be. The statutory nature conservation agencies' powers to formulate management plans will be available for designated special areas of conservation, and the Government will encourage formulation of such plans wherever they will benefit the nature conservation interest of the area.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan is intended to implement the Government's commitment made at the United Nations conference on environment and development to environmental education for sustainable development.
  822
  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom biodiversity action plan, which is due to be published after the House returns in January, will contain a strategy for the conservation and enhancement of species. A component of this strategy will be the important role of environmental education.

  Albemarle Children's Home
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will refer to the district auditor the case of the London borough of Bromley and the Albemarle children's home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. My right hon. Friend has no powers to take such action. Representations should be made direct to the district auditor.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Gummer
  The cash figures requested for my Department are as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  278

  1993–94

  280

  1994–95

  285

  The GDP deflators required to calculate real terms figures are shown on page 121 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95" (HC 31), copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Housing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures of the number of permanent dwellings started by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations each year from 1978 to 1993 and the estimates for the number of permanent dwellings in each category to be started each year from 1994 to 1996 under current provisions for public sector housing investment.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of housebuilding starts for England are shown in the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for each year from 1982 to 1992 are in table 6.1(a) of the 1982 to 1992 annual edition. Figures for 1978 to 1981 are in the same table of the editions for earlier years: 1980 and 1981 figures are in the 1980–1990 edition; 1978 and 1979 figures are in the 1978–1988 edition. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  The Department does not predict the number of houses to be built by local authorities or by housing associations.

  Tenants' Rights
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish for consultation the regulations governing the operation of the new right to compensation for tenants' improvements in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, have today published for consultation the regulations governing the operation of the compensation for tenants' improvement scheme. The views of local government, housing organisations and other interested parties are being sought on the detailed operation of a new mandatory scheme whereby local authority tenants can receive compensation for carrying out worthwhile home improvements, once their tenancy ends. The scheme will apply to improvements begun after 1 April next year. In line with the citizens charter this new right will benefit all council tenants, and provide them with a valuable incentive to improve their homes.

  The powers to establish this new scheme in England and Wales are contained in section 122 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be consulting on a similar scheme in Scotland. Copies of the draft regulations will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

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

  Mr. Gummer
  The overall cost to the Department of the Environment for their Ministers' car service was estimated at £270,000 in 1990–91. Eight cars were provided by the Government car service with drivers and full backup services.

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

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the answer of 9 December 1993, column 362): I regret that the figures contained in my earlier answer were incorrect. The correct information is as follows.

  In the financial year 1992–93, the Department spent £2,716,974.74 on press advertising and £4,212,673.15 on television advertising. These costs include creative and production charges, value added tax, and other levies as paid.

  The main campaigns were:

  Helping the Earth Begins at Home

  Right to Buy

  Council Tax Press Advertising March 1993

  Making a Corporate Commitment—to Energy Saving

  Halon Banking

  EMAS—Energy Management Assistance Scheme

  There was no expenditure on radio advertising in that financial year.
  824
  A breakdown of publicity advertising is not available for the years 1985 and 1979.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available about levels of radon gas in workplaces in radon-affected areas; what powers are available to local authorities to limit exposure to radon gas in the workplace; and what guidance has been issued.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive—HSE—commissions the National Radiological Protection Board—NRPB—to carry out research into the level of radon gas in workplaces in radon-affected areas, and reports of this work are produced. The NRPB also publish results of its own research.

  HSE and local authority inspectors use their normal powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure compliance with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. These set limits on occupational exposure to radon gas and require exposures to be kept as low as reasonably practicable.

  The HSE issued and widely circulated a free leaflet in July 1992 entitled "Radon in the Workplace", copies of which are available in the Library. Inspectors have fuller information which they issue to employers whose workplaces may be affected by radon.

TRANSPORT

  Ashford International Station
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to make an announcement about Ashford international passenger station.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am delighted to announce that the construction of Ashford international passenger station is to go ahead as a privately financed project. European Passenger Services has now signed agreements with John Laing plc whereby Laing will construct the station
  buildings and car parks, at its own cost and risk, and will in return receive from EPS a fee for each passenger using the station.

  The whole station is now expected to be completed in 1995, together with the associated railway works which I announced on 22 March.

  Merchant Navy (Homosexuality)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to repeal section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 to decriminalise homosexual acts in the Merchant Navy.

  Mr. Norris
  Yes, having consulted widely on this matter and considered all the factors involved, I have decided that there is no continued justification for the retention of offences specific to the Merchant Navy. Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 will therefore be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government funding has been paid annually to district councils to support rail services under section 20 of the Transport Act 1968.

  Mr. Freeman
  Assistance to local authority programmes is given through revenue support grant paid by the Department of the Environment. An amount is set aside within the "All other services" block for distribution to district councils in the six English metropolitan county areas in view of their responsibility for supporting local rail services. The amounts for the last four years are:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  77

  1991–92

  93

  1992–93

  105

  1993–94

  110

  The equivalent figure for 1994–95 is £112.9 million.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with the Freight Transport Association in regard to the impact on refrigerated transport of Her Majesty's Government's policy of phasing out CFC use in refrigeration systems by 1 January 1996.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce type approval legislation governing the level of road noise produced by motorway road surfaces.

  Mr. Key
  I have no plans to introduce type approval legislation governing the level of road noise produced by motorway road surfaces. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 13 December,Official Report, column 467.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of accidents per mile of United Kingdom motorway and the equivalent figure for each other EC country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Comparable data for EC countries are only available for fatalities. The table shows the number of fatalities per 100 miles of motorway for each of the EC countries.

  Fatalities per 100 miles of motorway, EC countries 1991

  Fatalities per 100 miles of motorway

  Belgium

  7.7

  Denmark

  1.9

  France

  5.9

  Germany

  8.8

  Irish Republic

  2.6

  Italy

  7.4

  826

  Fatalities per 100 miles of motorway

  Luxemburg1

  —

  Netherlands

  3.

  Portugal

  18.8

  Spain

  16.1

  United Kingdom

  4.7

  EC TOTAL2

  7.7

  1Data not available for Luxemburg.

  2 Excluding Luxemburg.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision he has made on changing the basis for the payment of light dues for 1994–95 from net to gross tonnage.

  Mr. Norris
  Light dues are currently assessed on the net registered tonnage of the vessel. In 1990, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced to the House the Government's decision in principle to change to a gross tonnage assessment from April 1994.

  I have decided not to proceed with such a change at this stage. However the standard tonnage assessment under the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement 1969 —ICT 69—will be fully implemented in July 1994. Further evidence collected by Trinity House suggests that some vessels would face a substantial increase in light dues if the final introduction of ICT 69 measurement followed closely on a move to gross tonnage assessment. Accordingly, I have decided to allow the change to ICT 69 measurement to take place and will monitor the results. This will permit a more accurate analysis of the effects on light dues of a move to gross tonnage. I shall then give further consideration to the possibility of a change to gross tonnage assessment.

  Air Navigation Services
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what United Kingdom airlines will be charged for air navigation services in 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The charges for air navigation services in 1994 are set out in the Civil Aviation (Route Charges for Navigation Services) (Second Amendment) Regulations 1993. A copy of the regulations was laid before the House on 10 December.

  It was necessary to revoke the Civil Aviation (Route Charges for Navigation Services) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, laid before the House on 6 December, before they came into force as the result of a very late change by France to their charges. I am happy to say that this last minute change, as shown in the second amendment to these regulations, was to the benefit of airspace users.

  Several of the member states of Eurocontrol have reduced their charges, and I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom's charge will fall by nearly 4 per cent. in sterling terms, or 9.5 per cent. in ecu. I know that this will be welcomed by the airlines, and it reflects well on the Civil Aviation Authority's control of its own costs that a reduction is possible at a time when it is investing to meet the airlines' future needs.

  Air Traffic Control Delays
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of air traffic control delays in the summers of(a) 1992 and (b) 1993; and what steps have been taken by the Civil Aviation Authority to improve the position on delays.

  Mr. Norris
  I am glad to say that this summer delays have been significantly less than last year. Delays to traffic leaving the United Kingdom have been reduced from an average of 11 minutes throughout summer 1992 to seven minutes over the same period of this year. There has been an even greater improvement for domestic traffic, with a decrease in the average delay for early morning flights to London from 20 minutes to four minutes over the same period. The number of outward bound flights delayed by more than an hour was decreased by 37 per cent., numbering typically 100 out of a total of some 7,500 flights a week. Delays to flights inbound to the United Kingdom have fallen from an average of 16 minutes in 1992 to 10 minutes in 1993. The service to airlines has been improved with the time taken to respond to requests for take-off "slots" reduced from 24 minutes to 14 minutes.

  These improvements reflect hard work by the CAA to provide increased airspace capacity, both through procedural measures and capital investment.

  The authority's investment programme continues to make good progress with the successful transfer in October of the Heathrow and Gatwick approach control functions to the new central control function operations room at the London air traffic control centre at West Drayton. The authority's £340 million new air traffic control centre at Swanwick, Hampshire, due to be completed in 1996, continues on time and on budget.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the availability and respsonse of search and rescue services in Shetland to the recent incidents involving Klondykers, with particular reference to the Lunohods 1 on 9 November and the Borodinskye Poyle on 15 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We are indeed satisfied with the availability and response of the search and rescue services in general and in particular those in the Shetlands. In the case of the Lunohods 1 and Borodinskye Poyle the magnificent and heroic efforts of the crew of the coastguard helicopter and the Lerwick RNLI lifeboat are of special note, together with the invaluable support of coastguard response teams, the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, the offshore industry including a Norwegian infield helicopter, and the merchant vessels. All of these services, professionally and expertly co-ordinated by the Shetland coastguard maritime rescue sub-centre, worked together to save the lives of all 60 crew of the Lunohods 1 and all 74 crew of the Borodinskye Poyle.

  Without doubt, these incidents were conducted in the best traditions of the United Kingdom search and rescue services and deserving of the highest praise for all those involved.

  British Rail
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the privatisation of British Rail's infrastructure service activities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today approved proposals from the British Railways Board for the restructuring and sale of its infrastructure service activities.

  From next April, British Rail will operate a new division—British Rail Infrastructure Services—BRIS—which will contract with Railtrack and the train operating companies to provide infrastructure maintenance, renewal and associated services. BRIS will be restructured during 1994–95 to set up two major groups of companies. One group will provide infrastructure maintenance services and the other will undertake renewal and other capital schemes. Other BRIS activities, for example design services, will also be established as companies. The companies will be sold during 1995 and the early part of 1996. BR's aim is to complete the transfer of the companies to the private sector by April 1996.

  Transferring these companies to the private sector and opening up the infrastructure supply market will ensure the competitive and efficient supply of infrastructure services to the rail industry.

  Red Star Parcels
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an announcement on the future of Red Star Parcels.

  Mr. Freeman
  Today, the British Railways Board announced, with the agreement of the Government, that it will be withdrawing the sale of Red Star as no satisfactory offers for the business have been received. The board will now seek urgently to prepare a new management plan for Red Star, with a view to achieving financial viability and successful disposal in 1994.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Norris
  Appointments made by my right hon. Friend since 1992 which had been advertised are the Rail Regulator and the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, both of whom head non-ministerial Government departments, and the Scottish Traffic Commissioner.

  The post of deputy traffic commissioner for the west midlands and south Wales traffic areas was advertised recently, but an appointment has not yet been made.

  Like other employers, we also advertise some internal posts.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's policy is to use executive search consultants wherever this is thought necessary to obtain a wide field of suitable candidates for
  829
  important full-time appointments or high profile part-time appointments, in particular where it has not been possible to identify suitable candidates from the public appointments unit's list or other sources.

  In 1992, executive search consultants were used to identify candidates to serve initially as advisors on regulation and franchising and then, subject to parliamentary approval of the Railways Bill, to take up appointment as the Rail Regulator and Director of Passenger Rail Franchising. At the same time, the consultants were asked to search for candidates for two appointments to the BR board, subsequently combined into one. The cost of search for candidates for the posts was £103,428 for fees, expenses and VAT, plus £28,670 for advertising costs.

  Consultants were also used by London Transport in 1992 in the search for candidates for appointment to the board as chief executive. The cost of this was borne by LT and is a matter for them.

  A41
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much expenditure there has been on roadworks on the A41 between Spur road and the Finchley road garage in the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  During the five-year period ending March 1993, some £5.6 million has been spent on improvement and major maintenance schemes on the A41 between A410 Spur road, the north circular road and A598 Finchley road, including the Al Barnet bypass but not the Great North way. In addition, £800,000 per annum is spent on routine and minor maintenance works.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for further improvements to the A41 between Spur road and the Finchley road garage after 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  Subject to availability of resources, the following improvements and substantial maintenance schemes are currently planned over the three years from April 1994, for the A4 I between A410 Spur road and A598 Finchley road, including the Al Barnet bypass.

  They will be programmed to cause the minimum of disruption and inconvenience.

  Improvement schemes
  Five Ways Corner—Junction improvements;
  Edgware Way—Local safety schemes between Spur road and Apex corner.

  Road maintenance
  Hendon Way—Carriageway strengthening between Brent Cross and Finchley road;
  Watford Way—Carriageway strengthening between Mill hill and Five Ways corner;
  Edgware Way—Carriageway strengthening between A410 Spur road and The Grove.

  Structure Maintenance
  Hendon Way—Repairs to Brent Cross flyover; —Strengthening of Brent Cross east subway;
  —Waterproofing of the subways at The Burroughs, Hendon Central, Rundell crescent, Ridgeway hill, Hall lane, Sunny hill park and Greyhound hill.
  Watford Way—Reconstruction of Bunns lane bridge.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.
  830
  Mr. Norris
  The number of Department of Transport press notices issued nationally since 1984 was as follows:

  Number

  1984

  584

  1985

  511

  1986

  601

  1987

  619

  1988

  623

  1989

  558

  1990

  461

  1991

  392

  1992

  379

  1993

  1503

  1 to 13 December 1993.

  Before 1984, issue of press notices was a common service of the Department of Transport, Environment and Property Services Agency and information concerning the number of press notices issued separately on transport is not available.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those positions so far filled on the staff of Railtrack, with salary in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are matters of management for the British Railways Board while Railtrack is still part of BR.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The final outturn for the recurrent costs of running my Department in 1992–93 is £386 million.

  The running costs provision for my Departments, including the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; the forthcoming Highways, Marine Safety and Marine Emergencies agencies; the new Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the new Office of the Rail Regulator, for 1993–94 is £433 million in cash, and £420 million in 1992–93 prices. An estimated outturn will be published in the spring in the 1994 departmental report and the unified Budget supplement.

  My Departments' planned running costs expenditure for 1994–95 will be published in the unified Budget supplement and in the Department's annual report which will be issued in the spring.

  Automatic Train Protection
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Tranport what is his policy towards the system known as automatic train protection.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is evaluating the technical trials, costs and benefits of automatic train protection systems. I understand that British Rail expects to reach
  831
  conclusions on the results of that work by the spring. I shall review ATP policy with British Rail and Railtrack in the light of those conclusions and of advice from the Health and Safety Commission.

  A205, Catford
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will take a decision on the start of the scheme to improve the A205 Catford town centre.

  Mr. Norris
  I will make an announcement on the A205 Catford town centre improvement scheme early next year.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has completed its appraisal of the north Yorkshire passenger transport executive bid for new rolling stock for the electrified Leeds-Bradford line; and if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to this order.

  Mr. Freeman
  The appraisal is still under discussion between my Department and West Yorkshire passenger transport executive. We have not yet had from the PTE all the information we need to enable us to reach a conclusion. We hope to reach a conclusion quickly once all the information is made available.

  British Rail Employees
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed in each division of British Rail on salaries of £30,000 or more at a recent convenient date.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail advises that, as of 15 December 1993, 1,337 people out of a total payroll of 128,800 were employed at salaries of £30,000 or more. This represents 1.04 per cent. of the work force. Further information in the form requested is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Number of families in receipt of supplementary benefit/income support

  As a percentage of families in receipt of child benefit

  Number of dependants of supplementary benefit/income support recipients

  As a percentage of Great Britain population under 19

  1979

  488,000

  6.8

  955,000

  6.3

  1989

  1,144,000

  17.2

  2,138,000

  15.8

  1992

  1,500,000

  21.9

  2,874,000

  21.3

  Notes:

  1. Sources: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries November 1979, May 1989, May 1992.
  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.
  Social Security Statistics.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  3. The number of families in receipt of child benefit has been used as an estimate of the number of families with dependent children in Great Britain.

  4. The number of dependent children is expressed as a percentage of the resident population of Great Britain of the same age group; ie: under 19. Some of these people will be living independently and may receive supplementary benefit/income support in their own right.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

  Child Road Deaths
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on the incidence of child road deaths of the United Kingdom adopting double British summer time.

  Mr. Key
  Based on 1991 road accident data, the Transport Research Laboratory has estimated that a total of 29 fatalities, 125 serious injuries and 140 slight injuries to children under the age of 16 could be saved in Great Britain if double British summer time were adopted.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given, as a part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the organisation Keeping London First, to requiring operators of private bus companies bidding for future bus route franchise contracts with London Transport to retain a standard form of bus livery or permitted variation thereof.

  Mr. Norris
  I am aware of the support which has been expressed for the retention of a red livery for buses in London. LT has no current plans to require private bus operators to conform to a standardised bus livery.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Children (Statistics)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security further to his reply of 2 December 1993,Official Report, column 720, if he will now show (a) the numbers of United Kingdom families with children and (b) the numbers of United Kingdom children dependent on supplementary benefit and income support in 1979, 1989 and 1992 and the percentages of (i) United Kingdom families with children and (ii) United Kingdom children involved.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table and is for Great Britain only.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Records showing expenditure on heating for individual buildings for the past four years are not held.

  Before April 1991 fuel and utility charges for the Government estate were met by the Property Services Agency.
  833
  Since 1991 we have, in common with other Government Departments, provided to the Department of the Environment's energy efficiency office the following total expenditure on energy:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  12,515,493

  1991–92

  14,213,000

  1992–93

  15,600,000

  Details of energy expenditure for the year to date are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases have been dealt with by the Child Support Agency since its inception from the Warrington, South constituency.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Ros Hepplewhite, the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, that information in the form requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, a report showing the agency's national performance is available each month in the Library.

  Unemployed People (Mortgages)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to limit payments to unemployed people in respect of very large mortgages.

  Mr. Burt
  Help for mortgage loans is given through income support. A limit of £150,000 was introduced on 2 August 1993. This limit will be reduced to £125,000 from 11 April 1994.

  Savings (Tariff Rates)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the tariff rates for savings in respect of claimants on income support and other related benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  In all the income-related benefits, capital up to £3,000 is ignored. The formula applied for capital above this figure does not imply any particular return on investments. It ensures that help is targeted on those who need it most, while not denying benefit to those with only a moderate amount of capital. The rules are kept under review, but we have no plans for change.

  Pensions
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women he estimates will lose five years of pension as a result of his Budget, for each year from 2010 to 2020.

  Mr. Hague
  No women reaching state pension age before 6 March 2020 will lose five years of pension as a result of the changes announced on 30 November 1993.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of unemployment benefit in the next 12 months; and what was the cost in 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated cost of unemployment benefit for 1994–95 is given in table 1 of the social security departmental report as £1.9 billion.

  The cost of unemployment benefit in 1979–80 was £653 million.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992;

  (2) which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Hague
  The use of executive search consultants is one of a number of options which may be considered in making appointments to public bodies. Since April 1992, no posts have been advertised nor have consultants been used in making any such appointments.

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

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the tables.

  £

  Advertising costs in whole years

  1989–90

  6,799,000

  1990–91

  4,560,000

  1991–92

  5,794,000

  1992–93

  4,517,000

  Advertising costs for the last 12 months

  December 1992

  88,492

  January 1993

  1,055,229

  February

  29,840

  March

  2,800,494

  April

  12,343

  June

  1,223,689

  July

  2,018,378

  August

  589,155

  October

  412,129

  November

  25,498

  Notes:

  1. The Department of Social Security did not exist independently prior to August 1988.

  2. These figures include advertising on behalf of the Department's HQ and executive agencies other than the Benefits Agency (BA). The projected expenditure in 1993–94 for BA is £670,734. A monthly breakdown of this figure is not available. Figures for previous years since 1991–92 (when the agency took over responsibility for expenditure in this area) are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.
  835
  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.

  Number

  1991

  187

  1992

  199

  19931

  2142

  1Up until 14 December.

  2This figure includes press releases issued on behalf of executive agencies other than the Benefits Agency.

  Notes:

  1. The total number of press releases issued by the Benefits Agency between April 1991 and 13 December 1993 is 281. (This figure excludes press releases issued by the local offices of the Benefits Agency).

  2. Before 1988 the Department was part of the DHSS and separate figures for Social Security are not available.

  3. From 1988 to October 1990 press releases were still processed centrally by the joint Departments and separate figures are not available.

  Disability
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for extending the pre-qualification period for disability premium before the commencement of payment; what will be the consequential estimated change in payment to a married couple; if he will list the passported benefits, the waiting period for which would also alter consequential upon any alteration in the waiting period for first payment of disability premium and their weekly value to a married couple; and what will be the estimated changes in Government expenditure under this heading in a full year.

  Mr. Burt
  The disability premium provides extra help in income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit for the long-term sick and the disabled. The amount of the disability premium for a married couple is currently £26.45 a week, increasing to £27.80 a week from 11 April 1994.

  For those claiming these benefits as long-term sick the rules for the disability premium will be changed from April 1995 to reflect the incapacity benefit changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 1 December. The highest rate of the new incapacity benefit will act as a passport to the disability premium. Severe isablement allowance will continue to bring entitlement to the disability premium. For those who have no other means of entitlement to the disability premium, the period of incapacity needed to qualify will increase from 28 to 52 weeks and the new definition of work and assessment of incapacity will apply.

  Disability living allowance, attendance allowance and mobility supplement are other passporting benefits to the disability premium, which can also be awarded on other grounds—for instance, if the person is registered blind. These routes to the disability premium will not be affected by the incapacity benefit changes.

  The estimate of the consequences of the incapacity benefit changes on income-related benefit expenditure for sick and disabled people is not available at present. I will write to the Hon. Gentleman with this information as soon as possible.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war pensioners have been in receipt of invalidity benefit in each year since 1980; and what is the current figure.
  836
  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the relationship between invalidity benefit rulings and disabled living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalidity benefit and disability living allowance are separate benefits designed to meet different needs. Different rules apply to the award of these benefits. If my hon. Friend has a particular concern in mind, perhaps he would care to write to me about it.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  (i) The final outturn for the recurrent costs of running the Department in 1992–93 is £3,741 million.

  (ii) The estimated outturn for 1993–94 is £4,118 million or £3,988 million at 1992–93 prices.

  (iii) The Department's planned administration expenditure for 1994–95 is £4,023 million or £3,747 million at 1992–93 prices.

  Notes:
  The figures at 1992–93 prices were calculated by using the GDP deflator.
  The figures do not include the subsidy given in respect. of work carried out by local authorities.
  The figues in (iii) were agreed in the 1993 Public Expenditure Survey. These will be published in the 1994 Departmental Report, but, in the meantime, may need to be revised to take into account any subsequent transfers.

  Child Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many powers were conferred on him by the Child Support Act 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Act 1991 confers same 150 powers on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, many of them reflecting previous arrangements under social security legislation. About 80 per cent. of these powers provide for making regulations or orders and are in many cases procedural. The remainder cover straightforward administrative matters.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out details of the new rates of benefits proposed from April 1994 and the details of help to be made available to meet the cost of VAT on domestic fuel.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 November 1993, columns 437-50]: The information given in the schedule contained two typographical errors.
  Column 440:
  The figure of "£139.99" quoted in relation to alternative maximum council tax benefit second adult on income support—second adults gross income: should read "£138.99".

  837
  Column 448:
  The entry for contracted out deductions should read: "Contracted out deductions (CODs) and increments to CODs (from post-April 1988 earnings)." 1.8 per cent. paid by scheme

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Imports And Exports
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for imports and exports between the United Kingdom and each of the other countries of the European Union.

  Mr. Nelson
  In the first nine months of the year, there was a deficit of £0.8 billion in visible trade with other members of the European Union, compared with a deficit of £2.5 billion over the same period in 1992.

  Figures for United Kingdom trade with individual members of the Union consistent with these totals will be available shortly.

  Christmas Help
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policies he will introduce to assist the unemployed people and pensioners in the Southwark and Bermondsey constituency over Christmas.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The measures to bring about economic growth and the benefit increases that I was able to announce in my Budget will help pensioners and unemployed people, and not just in Southwark and Bermondsey, but throughout the whole country.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the east midlands who have previously paid no income tax will now do so as a result of changes announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1994–95 no one will be brought into income tax as a result of the Budget changes.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received following his measures to help pensioners pay value added tax on fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  Our decision to add £1.30 a week to the single pension and £1.85 a week to the couples pension by April 1996 to help with fuel bills has been widely welcomed.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the amount which will be raised in a full year by the imposition of VAT on fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  VAT on fuel and power is estimated to raise £2,850 million in 1996–97, the first full year of revenue.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue will be raised in the 1993–94 tax year by the changes in the value added tax rate on fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  Nil.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year until 1997–98; and what is the equivalent figure for each other EC country.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public sector borrowing requirement in the United Kingdom is projected to fall steadily to 1½ per cent. of GDP by 1997–98. Equivalent projections for each other EC country are not available.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the reduction in interest payments on an average mortgage since October 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  Since October 1990, mortgage rates have been reduced from over 15 per cent. to under 8 per cent., saving a homeowner with an average mortgage £160 a month.

  Retail Sales
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of retail sales.

  Mr. Nelson
  In the three months to November, retail sales volumes were over 3½ per cent. higher than a year earlier and at record levels.

  Business Taxes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total payments have been made in each of the last four years to cover return of advance corporation tax or other taxes on dividends or interests to companies or businesses which are either owned by, or are in the control of, foreign Governments under the sovereign immunity arrangement; and in which OECD countries the rates are more favourable to businesses.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Sovereign immunity from taxation is accorded only to foreign sovereigns and Governments; it does not apply to companies or other separate entities. I regret that I am not clear what information is requested in the second part of the question.

  Debt Interest
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the change in public sector debt interest payments over the next three years as a result of the November Budget; and what estimate he has made as to the effect of the change on the sustainability of Government finances.

  Mr. Portillo
  By 1996–97, I estimate that debt interest payments will be £1.2 billion lower as a result of the November Budget. The Budget puts the public finances on a sound and sustainable basis.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of total public spending is accounted for by spending on the national health service.
  839
  Mr. Portillo
  Net NHS expenditure in the United Kingdom is expected to account for 12.5 per cent. of general Government expenditure in 1993–94.

  Indirect Taxation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on the average family's tax bill of the Budget changes in indirect taxation.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on the average family's tax bill of the Budget changes in indirect taxation.

  Sir John Cope
  The impact of changes to indirect taxes will depend on the level and pattern of spending by a family and as such any estimates are subject to large margins of error. However, it is estimated that on average the changes in indirect taxation will cost households about 90p per week over the next year relative to indexation.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure he has for the number of companies registered for value added tax in the United Kingdom; and what this figure was 12 months ago.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest available information and that for the 12 months ago is as follows:

  Number of companies registered

  Date

  Number

  September 1993

  498,750

  December 1992

  514,085

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT was paid by an average family on an income of £200 per week on 9 April 1992; and how much he estimates they will pay on 9 April 1994.

  Sir John Cope
  Estimates of indirect tax payments outside the range of three-quarters to one-and-a-half times
  average earnings are not available. A one-earner couple with two children on three-quarters average earnings—£260.80 a week in 1992–93—paid approximately £13.30 a week in VAT. The equivalent figure for 1994–95, in 1992–93 prices, is estimated to be £14.40 a week.

  Building

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Great George Street

  59,900.00

  62,494.00

  4,846.00

  9,535.00

  Alencon Link Basingstoke

  6,464,.96

  8,877.00

  5,521.00

  3,759.30

  Allington Towers

  4,414.11

  Prior to 1990–91 utilities on the departmental estate were paid direct by Property Services Agency. These figures are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to compensate the construction industry, following his decision to cut the annual allocation to the Housing Corporation.

  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.

  Tax Increases
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates the cumulative tax increases since last March will cost the average family from(a) April 1994 and (b)

  Mr. Dorrell
  On average, the main tax related changes will cost households around £5.30 a week from April 1994, and an additional £3.30 a week from April 1995.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if tax is applicable in the occupied royal palaces reserved for(a) the Duke and Duchess of Kent, (b) the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, (c) Princess Alexandra and (d) Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The normal income tax rules apply to living accommodation provided in royal palaces. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that the rules of confidentiality regarding taxpayers' affairs prevent me from commenting on individual cases.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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.

  Sir John Cope
  The annual fuel heating bills for HM Treasury attributable to the last three years and to date are as follows:

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of interest the Government are paying to borrow money; and what has been the rate in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's borrowing programme involves issuing a number of different liabilities, mainly gilts and National Savings products.
  841
  The coupons payable on gilts are given in table 3.6 of "Financial Statistics", together with the nominal amount of each issue and the cash received. The supplementary statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts give further details on an annual basis. For each stock, they indicate the principal outstanding at the beginning and end of the year, the cash received from borrowing and the discount on each stock, repayments, and the interest paid.

  A summary measure of the interest rates payable on gilts is provided by the par yields for five, 10 and 20 year gilts in table 13.5 of "Financial Statistics". These show that gilt yields are now at their lowest levels for more than 20 years. The rates on National Savings products are published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes and in press notices at the time of each interest rate change. The rates are also displayed in Post Offices. A back series of the rates on the investment account is published in "Financial Statistics", table 13.9.

  Flight Tax
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he proposes to ensure that air passengers originating in destinations which do not possess through-check-in facilities will not be double-charged flight tax on journeys of more than one leg.

  Sir John Cope
  Air passenger duty will be collected from airlines. It is expected that they will charge it to customers when the ticket is sold. Customs and Excise are discussing with the airline industry details of the operation of the duty, including arrangements to ensure that the correct amount of duty is charged for passengers on multi-legged journeys.

  Petrol Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now introduce measures to compensate for higher duties on petrol and diesel for those parts of the United Kingdom likely to be hardest hit by such increases of duty.

  Sir John Cope
  No.

  Gross National Product
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the predicted size of the gross domestic product and the gross national product is during the current financial year; what they were five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Gross domestic product at current factor cost—1990 prices—was £367 billion in 1978–79, £388 billion in 1983–84, and £470 billion in 1988–89. For the current financial year, 1993–94, it is forecast to be £477 billion.

  Gross national product at const—ant factor cost1990 prices—was £369 billion in 1978–79, £391 billion in 1983–84, and £475 billion in 1988–89. The Government do not publish a forecast of gross national product.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he makes of the annual revenue which would be forgone as a result of increasing the VAT turnover threshold to £45,000.
  842
  Sir John Cope
  The revenue cost of raising the VAT registration threshold to £45,000 is estimated to be of the following order:

  1993–94 (part year)

  1994–95 (full year)

  1995–96 (full year)

  £5 million

  £40 million

  £45 million

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the yield from the anti-tax avoidance measures contained in the Budget over the next two years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The anti-avoidance measures announced in the Budget will yield an estimated £580 million in 1994–95 and £615 million in 1995–96.

  Incomes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual percentage increase or decrease in real disposable income between(a) 1964 and 1970, (b) 1970 and 1974, (c) 1974 and 1979 and (d) 1979 to the latest available year.

  Mr. Nelson
  Real personal disposable income has increased in each of these periods. The average annual percentage increases are as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1964–70

  2.0

  1970–74

  3.8

  1974–79

  2.2

  1979–92

  2.5

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Nelson
  The post of chief executive of the Royal Mint Management Board was advertised using the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency in December 1992.

  European Union
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the heads under which the United Kingdom makes regular public expenditure and tax revenue contributions to the European Union and its institutions.

  Sir John Cope
  In accordance with the "Own Resources Decision", Cm 419, the United Kingdom's gross contribution to the European Community budget is comprised of:

  (a) agriculture and sugar levies;

  (b) customs duties;

  (c) payments on the basis of a harmonized VAT base;

  (d) GNP contributions (the fourth resource).

  Agricultural and sugar levies and customs duties are paid to the Commission after the deduction of 10 per cent. for collection costs. The United Kingdom's gross

  843
  contribution is reduced by the abatement arrangements agreed at Fontainebleau in 1984, and set out in the "Own Resources Decision". In addition, the United Kingdom also contributes to the capital of the European investment bank, the European development fund and pays production levies on the import of coal and steel products to the European Coal and Steel Community.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the total and average income tax liability in 1994–95; what these would have been if the 1978–79 regime had been maintained in index-linked form;

  1994–95

  Income tax liability

  Income tax and National Insurance contribution liability1

  Total £ billion

  Average £

  Total £ billion

  Average £

  Men

  52.0

  3,480

  66.0

  4,420

  Women

  18.5

  1,770

  24.5

  2,340

  All

  70.5

  2,780

  90.5

  3,560

  1Excluding the National Insurance liability of individuals not liable to income tax,

  1978–79 income tax and National Insurance regimes indexed to 1994–95

  Income tax liability

  Income tax and National insurance contribution liability1

  Total £ billion

  Average £

  Total £ billion

  Average £

  Men

  74.5

  4,820

  83.4

  5,400

  Women

  27.8

  2,450

  32.3

  2,850

  All

  102.3

  3,820

  115.7

  4,320

  1Excluding the National Insurance liability of individuals not liable to income tax.

  Controlled Foreign Companies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has, in advance of the publication of the Finance Bill, to publish the changes he proposed in the Budget to the provisions on controlled foreign companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The relevant clause, which is to be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill, is being published today in an Inland Revenue press release. Copies of the clause are being placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of revenue to be derived from air passenger duty in the first full financial year in respect of(a) scheduled passenger flights to and from Orkney, (b) scheduled passenger flights to and from Shetland, (c) scheduled passenger flights to and from the western isles and (d) scheduled passenger flights to and from airports operated by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: The total revenue yield from passengers on these routes is expected to be under £2 million.
  844
  and if he will give the figures including and excluding national insurance contributions and for men and women separately.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates are in the table. For the purposes of the calculations, the 1978–79 regime has been indexed to 1994–95 by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation and applied directly to the income base of 1994–95. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Travel Tax
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to collect the new travel tax.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: Air passenger duty will be collected from airlines on the basis of the number of passengers carried. It is expected that airlines will add the duty to the ticket price paid by passengers when tickets are issued. Airlines will be required to register with Customs and Excise and make returns to account for the duty due. Copies of the document outlining the duty, issued by Customs and Excise at my request on Budget day, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  ECOFIN
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ECOFIN meeting on 14 December; and what arrangements have been made to deal with the need for borrowing by the European investment bank.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC ECOFIN Council of 13 and 14 December indicating the voting record of each member state on each item and where no formal votes were taken.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The last ECOFIN under the Belgian presidency was held on 13 December. I represented the United Kingdom.
  845
  The Council adopted a recommendation for broad economic policy guidelines under article 103 of the treaty. The final text was closely modelled on the report from ECOFIN to the European Council agreed on 5 December subject to certain changes to ensure consistency with the European Council conclusions on growth, competitiveness and employment. The text was fully acceptable to me and in line with the policy of the British Government.

  ECOFIN also conducted the assessment of progress required under article 109e of the treaty with regard to economic and monetary convergence and the implementation of Community law concerning the internal market.

  The directive on VAT on second hand goods was agreed. The United Kingdom secured a satisfactory compromise on the treatment of imported works of art. These will be taxed at the equivalent rate of 2.5 per cent. until 30 June 1999. The Council also adopted a number of derogations for member states under the mineral oils structures directive.92/81/EEC.

  The Council discussed its remit from the European Council to consider further the financing of trans-European networks. Financing will be on the basis of private sector finance supplemented by funds from within the expenditure ceilings agreed at Edinburgh and loans and guarantees from the European investment bank—EIB—and the European investment fund. It was agreed that there would be further discussions between the presidency, EIB and the Commission in advance of discussion in the Council during the Greek presidency on whether there was a need for any additional sources of finance.

  There was some discussion of the Commission's proposal for interest rate subsidies on EIB lending to small and medium-sized enterprises under the Edinburgh lending facility. The presidency stressed the importance of reaching agreement on the text by the end of the year in line with the conclusions of the European Council.

  There was also discussion of the Commission's proposals for the harmonised treatment of withholding tax on savings. I reiterated the United Kingdom's objections to the proposal but agreed that work should continue within the Commission and at official level.

  The presidency heard a statement from the Commission on its proposal for a directive on the taxation of interest and royalties which, in broad terms, would remove source country taxation of cross-border interest and royalty payments between companies. The Commission hopes that work will continue at official level with a view to a further discussion in the Council in the new year.

  The Council agreed in principle a Commission proposal for balance of payments support for Moldova. The Council emphasised that its actions did not constitute a precedent and would be funded within the existing budgetary ceilings for assistance.

  There was little substantive discussion on the Commission's proposal for a carbon/energy tax and the matter was referred back for further consideration at official level. I made it clear that there is no need for further environmental taxes in the United Kingdom to meet our commitments under the Rio convention, and that we were opposed to an EC-wide carbon/energy tax.

  ECOFIN Ministers and their EFTA counterparts met to discuss the economic situation against the background of the broad economic policy guidelines and the European Council discussion on growth, competitiveness and employment. There was general agreement on the importance of economic co-operation in Europe.

  The Council took no formal votes.

WALES

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

  Mr. Redwood
  The cost of providing a car service for Ministers in the 1990–91 financial year was £143,000; four official vehicles were involved, including two based in Cardiff. The Welsh Office has no armoured Daimlers, and no car with a cost price of more than £25,000 contrary to some recent press comment.

  Lamb Exports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the value of Welsh lamb exports in each of the past five years; and what plans he has for initiatives to improve export levels in coming years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Exports of Welsh lamb to Europe in recent years have been as follows:

  £ million

  1989

  33

  1990

  35

  1991

  45

  1992

  75

  1993

  95

  The 1989 and 1990 figures are estimated; that for 1993 is a forecast.

  Welsh Food Promotions Ltd. and its associated body, Welsh Lamb Enterprise, are working closely and successfully with Food From Britain in promoting exports of lamb. New market opportunities are being identified and exploited vigorously. I myself help promote Welsh lamb and other Welsh foods whenever opportunity presents itself.

  Severn Bridge (Charges)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the effect of current Severn bridge toll charges and practices on tourism in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Six representations have been received regarding the effect of current Severn bridge toll charges and practices on tourism in Wales.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up a unit within the Welsh Office to advise local authority joint committees on grant application for grants during the period of transition to the new unitary structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. Advice will be issued to transition committees at the appropriate time where necessary.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he will make to encourage efficient adoption of information technology by the new unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement.
  847
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I shall be urging the new authorities to make the fullest possible use of existing IT facilities.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he will issue guidelines for the listing of assets of local authorities prior to their merger to the unitary councils and the residual authority;

  (2) what representations he has received on the timing of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 14 December.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will (a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and(b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  Executive search consultants are considered only in cases where candidates for a public appointment are unlikely to be found from the Department's register of candidates or recommendations from other sources.

  Since April 1992, consultants have not been used in making public appointments. Some of the bodies themselves do use search consultants for appointments within their powers.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1992, I have advertised the chairmanship of the Welsh Development Agency and the Cardiff bay barrage independent groundwater complaints administrator. It is my policy to advertise by press release and/or paid advertisement the important posts available.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of(a) the further education funding council and (b) the higher education funding
  council; what guidelines he has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many board members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions;

  (2) what criteria are used in the selection of the chair and the executive members of (a) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales; (b) the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and (c) Housing for Wales, in respect of relevant experience and qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils for Wales are required to have a minimum of eight and a maximum of 12 members. The Chairmen and members were appointed in accordance with the criteria set out in section 1 and section 62 respectively of the Act, which require members of the councils to have relevant experience in further and/or higher education or in the industrial, commercial and financial sectors or the professions.
  848
  In making the appointments to the board of Housing for Wales, I consider factors including the skills, experience and capabilities relevant to the successful conduct of this major public body.

  Forestry Commission Woods
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all Forestry Commission woods in Montgomeryshire; what plans he has to sell off any of these woods under the current disposals programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Forestry Commission is preparing such a list which will also show those woods which are currently on the market, and I shall send a copy to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible. I shall also arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the date of expiry of the initial five year experimental phase of the environmentally sensitive area scheme in Wales; when he expects the new environmentally sensitive area agreement to be made available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The first management agreement signed under the Environmentally Sensitive areas (Cambrian Mountains) Designation Order 1986 expired on 18 June 1992. A revised scheme, under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Cambrian Mountains) Designation (Amendment) Order 1992, came into force on 30 June 1992.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sheep farmers in Wales have not yet received their sheep annual premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Around 4,000 of the 17,445 valid claims received remain to be paid; a further 1,000 will be paid out shortly. The remaining claims are being given priority.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department issued press releases for the Welsh Office and on behalf of other Government Departments as follows:

  Year

  Welsh Office

  Other departments

  Total

  11979

  —

  —

  197

  1980

  —

  —

  440

  1981

  —

  —

  484

  1982

  742

  292

  1,034

  1983

  847

  253

  1,100

  1984

  916

  187

  1,103

  1985

  878

  420

  1,298

  1986

  814

  470

  1,284

  1987

  779

  564

  1,343

  849

  Year

  Welsh Office

  Other departments

  Total

  1988

  960

  558

  1,518

  1989

  815

  511

  1,326

  1990

  881

  397

  1,278

  1991

  1,245

  329

  1,574

  1992

  1,088

  256

  1,344

  1993

  1,039

  146

  1,185

  1Last seven months.

  Records have not been kept of the split between press releases issued for the Welsh Office and for other departments for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981.

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

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh Office advertising expenditure for each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Year

  £,000

  1979–80

  61

  1980–81

  62

  1981–82

  100

  1982–83

  99

  1983–84

  108

  1984–85

  66

  1985–86

  31

  1986–87

  76

  1987–88

  230

  1988–89

  174

  1989–90

  411

  1990–91

  288

  1991–92

  349

  1992–93

  427

  The records which my Department keeps and those of the Central Office of Information, which buys Government advertising, shows payments for invoices received rather than the value of actual advertising for each month. Costs are also monitored on a campaign by campaign basis. Shown is a table of monthly payments on that basis:

  Total monthly expenditure for advertising November 1992 to November 1993

  Month

  £

  1992

  November

  969

  December

  30,197

  1993

  January

  17,003

  February

  9,985

  March

  190,625

  April

  0

  May

  1,850

  June

  0

  July

  17,738

  August

  24,076

  September

  38,200

  October

  55,749

  November

  59,408

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  The final outturn for the recurrent costs of running the Department in 1992–93 was £60.6 million. The estimated outturn for 1993–94 is £66.8 million in cash terms and £64.7 million in 1992–93 prices. The Department's planned running costs expenditure for 1994–95 will be published in the departmental report due for publication in February. The 1993–94 figures include superannuation, but those for 1992–93 do not; so they do not represent a true figure for the increase.

  Health Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will accelerate the fusion of health authorities and family health service authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 21 October that enabling legislation would be introduced. Authorities are already working closely together and are establishing joint management structures.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the income generated by private medical practice within each of the area health authorities in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of income from private medical practice generated within the area of each health authority in Wales in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 was as follows:

  £ thousands

  District

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  528

  593

  639

  East Dyfed

  256

  246

  210

  Gwent

  62

  167

  201

  Gwynedd

  258

  269

  180

  Mid Glamorgan

  145

  228

  276

  Pembrokeshire

  130

  133

  155

  Powys

  —

  —

  2

  South Glamorgan

  94

  142

  189

  West Glamorgan

  221

  264

  300

  Notes:

  1. Consists of private in-patients (Section 65), private non-resident patients (Section 66) and accommodation and services provided under Section 58 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  2. Data for Pembrokeshire in 1992–93 relates to income received by the Pembrokeshire National Health Service Trust.

  Source: Health Authorities' and Pembrokeshire National Health Service Trust annual accounts.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press officers his Department has employed in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Redwood
  The numbers are as follows:
  851

  Year

  Press officers

  1983

  8

  1984

  9

  1985

  9

  1986

  9

  1987

  9

  1988

  8

  1989

  8

  1990

  8

  1991

  8

  1992

  8

  1993

  8

  Green Belts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decision on green belts and green barriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Assembly of Welsh Counties submitted its advice on strategic planning guidance in Wales, which includes its consideration of the green belt question in late July this year. My right hon. Friend is currently considering that advice.

  Business Advice
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to establish business centres offering easy access to business advice and support.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. I intend early next year to publish a prospectus inviting public and private sector organisations to make proposals for the formation of business centres. These will provide single points of access to advice and guidance for businesses and will have strong business leadership. I will approve a centre only if it reduces the overlap which currently exists. I will expect high-quality standards. They will provide services themselves, but will also be required to recognise the very substantial contribution that accountants, solicitors and others in the private sector make to the growth of local firms. The prospectus will be a challenge. I want to see imaginative responses.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the out-turn figures for publicity expenditure for the year 1992–93, the estimated out-turn for publicity expenditure for 1993–94, sub-divided by television, press and other categories; and if he will make a statement concerning proposals for publicity expenditure in the next financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: Publicity expenditure in 1992–93 and for the first seven months of 1993–94 is as follows:

  Television £000

  Press £000

  Other £000

  1992–93

  77

  350

  1,547

  1993–94

  —

  1206

  1653

  1Provisional out-turn.

  A reliable estimate of expenditure for the remainder of 1993–94 is not available at present. My Department will
  852
  shortly be carrying out an annual review of publicity expenditure plans for the remainder of 1993–94 and I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available in the new year.

  I aim to keep TV advertising to a minimum and then only for public information on items such as road safety and health.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Employees (Quotas)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the Government Departments, (b) next steps agencies and (c) public bodies which have been issued with certificates exempting them from fulfilling quota obligations on the employment of disabled people in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It has been the policy of successive Governments to treat as confidential information about the issue of permits under the quota scheme to individual employers and not to disclose it without their permission. Government Departments and agencies are not legally bound by quota legislation and do not have to apply for permits.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those employers currently utilising his Department's two-tick logo denoting good practice in the employment of disabled people.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 16 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question requesting a list of those employers currently utilising the disability symbol (the "two-ticks logo") denoting good practice in the employment of disabled people.
  Unfortunately I am unable to enclose a full national list with this reply. As you may know, the disability symbol was first introduced in 1990. It was reviewed towards the end of 1992 and, in order to clarify its meaning and improve its impact, we have introduced changes to the initiative which came into effect on 1 June this year. We now require employers using the symbol to make five specific commitments to good practice in the areas of recruiting, consulting and retaining disabled people, developing disability awareness and reviewing the effectiveness of the commitments in the organisation.
  These changes have meant that the earlier symbol users needed to re-examine their practices and, in some cases, to introduce changes before confirming whether or not they would continue to use the symbol. My field disability service has been working to contact all symbol users, discuss the new commitments and confirm which employers would continue under the new arrangements. Former symbol users not able to make the commitments have been asked to cease using the symbol.
  Although we have recently compiled a draft list of symbol users throughout the country, we are not yet satisfied that old users of the symbol who are not continuing as symbol users have been fully weeded out. It is, of course, very important that we are able to provide a full and accurate list of organisations using the symbol and we are reluctant to publish it until we have had a further opportunity to check its accuracy.
  The checking process is now in hand and I would hope to write to you again with a full national list as soon as it is practicable. In the meantime, I enclose for your information a

  853
  checked list of large company symbol users with whom our Major Organisations Development Unit has been working closely.
  Employing people with a disability

  The disability symbol

  Companies using the symbol

  Anglia Television

  B and Q

  Bank of England

  Bank of Scotland

  Barclays Bank

  The Body Shop

  Boots (dealt with by Nottinghamshire PACT)

  British Nuclear Fuels

  Central TV

  Channel 4

  Ford Motor Company

  Forte plc

  George Wimpey

  Granada Television

  Halifax Building Society

  IBM

  Iceland

  John Menzies

  Lloyds Bank

  London Weekend Television

  Midland Bank

  National Westminster Bank

  Nationwide Building Society

  Pearl Assurance

  Pizza Hut

  Post Office Corporation

  Rank Organisation

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Safeways

  Sainsburys

  Tesco

  Woolwich Building Society

  Note:—The above list includes symbol users among the major companies dealt with by the Employment Service Major Organisations Development Unit. It does not constitute a full national list of symbol users. (Correct at 15 December 1993).

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total number of certificates issued to companies in each year since 1979 allowing exemptions from quota obligations for the employment of disabled people.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 16 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about how many certificates allowing exemptions from quota obligations for the employment of disabled people have been issued to companies in each year since 1979.
  It may help if I briefly explain employers' duties and obligations under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.
  The Act places a duty on employers who have twenty or more workers to employ a quota of registered disabled people. It is not an offence to be below Quota. However, when in this situation, an employer has a further duty under the Act to engage suitable registered disabled people if any are available when vacancies arise. An employer who is below Quota must not engage anyone other than registered disabled person without first obtaining a permit to do so, and must not discharge a registered disabled person without reasonable cause.
  Permits may be issued to authorise the engagement of one or more people for specific vacancies. However the majority of employers who are granted permits receive bulk permits. These authorise the engagement of a specified number of people who are
  854
  not registered as disabled, during a period of up to six months. Bulk permits do not grant exemption from employers' duties and obligations under the Act.
  We do not collect figures centrally on the numbers of permits issued overall. I am, therefore, unable to provide the precise information you asked for. However, I am able to provide figures on the numbers of employers that were below Quota on 1 June each year from 1979 onwards, who had been issued with permits at some stage in the previous 12 months. This information is in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Number of employers below quota on 1 June issued with permits in the previous 12 months

  Year

  Numbers

  1979

  22,412

  1980

  22,001

  1981

  21,183

  1982

  19,796

  1983

  18,536

  1984

  18,769

  1985

  18,681

  1986

  18,840

  1987

  18,577

  1988

  18,594

  1989

  18,530

  1990

  18,036

  1991

  17,649

  1992

  15,871

  1993

  16,684

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the result of research carried out by his Department on the attitude of disabled employees and prospective employees upon the introduction of employers' contributions under the access to work proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Disabled people's organisations have generally welcomed the new forms of help to overcome barriers to work which the employer contributions under access to work will make possible. We are taking account of the views expressed by their organisations about the employer contribution in making our final decisions about the scheme.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of entrants to the business start-up scheme who were receiving income support immediately previous to entry remained in business for at least 18 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the number of business start-up scheme—BSUS—participants receiving income support prior to entry is not routinely collected; nor has information in this form been collected through recent surveys. A recent follow-up survey of BSUS participants identified those who were unemployed and claiming any State benefit prior to entry on BSUS. Sixty-nine per cent. of these survived in business for at least 18 months.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those taking up enterprise allowance in 1992–93 were immediately prior to their taking up this scheme in receipt of income support or unemployment benefit.
  855
  Miss Widdecombe
  The business start-up scheme replaced the enterprise allowance scheme in April 1991. Information about those who start on the scheme is collected from special surveys. The latest survey covers those who started in May 1991. From the survey, it is estimated that 66 per cent. of those who started in May 1991 were unemployed and claiming benefit prior to starting the scheme.

  Workstart
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken up places on the workstart pilot schemes in(a) south London, (b) Tyneside and (c) east Kent since last March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon and learned Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 7 December 1993,Official Report, columns 210-11.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The use of executive search consultants is one of the options which the Employment Department considers in making appointments to public bodies.

  Since April 1992, the following appointments made using consultants and the fees paid excluding VAT are as follows:

  Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission,
  appointed from 1 October 1993. Fees—£25,000.

  Chief Executive of Investors in People UK,
  appointed from 1 December 1993. Fees—£15,000.

  Finance Director of Remploy Ltd.,
  appointed from 1 April 1992. Fees—£18,085.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following five appointments to public bodies sponsored by the Employment Department have been advertised since April 1992:

  Chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS);

  Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission;

  Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission;

  Chief Executive of Investors in People UK;

  Finance Director of Remploy Ltd.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of training and enterprise councils; what guidelines he has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many board members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions.
  856
  Miss Widdecombe
  A training and enterprise council board must have at least nine directors and not more than 15, excluding the chief executive. The TEC operating agreement sets out the broad framework for TEC boards and specifies that two thirds of the directors must come from the private sector. The remaining third may be drawn from education, economic development, trade unions, voluntary organisations and the public sector. More generally, the Department expects a TEC board to reflect the composition of the local area it serves.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of chairpersons and board members of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of board members for the 75 training and enterprise councils for England is 1,015—75 of whom are chairmen. Information for the TECs in Wales is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to reply.

  Joblink Enterprise Ltd.
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the average cost to public funds of a Joblink Enterprise Ltd. job plan class; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the total amount of funding the Government have committed to Joblink Enterprise Ltd. since Joblink Enterprise's inception; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 16 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Questions about Joblink Enterprise Ltd and their involvement in the delivery of programmes for unemployed people and in particular Jobplan Workshops.
  It may be helpful if I explain that the Employment Service (ES) contracts for a range of programmes to help unemployed people back to work. Contracts are normally awarded as a result of competitive tendering and successful organisations come from the public, private and voluntary sectors.
  You ask for information about one provider, Joblink Enterprise Ltd who currently hold a number of contracts to deliver ES programmes including Jobplan workshops. Without the permission of the organisation in question, it would, I believe, be inappropriate to disclose information about the average cost of these contracts not least because as it may give other organisations an unfair advantage when future tenders are invited. I can tell you, however, that the average costs nationally of Jobplan workshops and Restart Courses are £1,067 and £708 per course excluding VAT, respectively.
  You also ask what is the total value of contracts placed with Joblink Enterprise. Between 1 July 1992 and 14 December 1993 we have paid them a total of £2,501,706 for the delivery of our programmes.
  Vocational training is delivered through the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) in England and Wales and Local Enterprise Companies (LECs) in Scotland. Contracts for the delivery of training are awarded by the individual TECs and LECs.
  I have been told by Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate (TEED) of the Employment Department that there is no record of any training contracts between any TEC/LEC and Joblink Enterprise Ltd.
  I hope this is helpful.

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

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

  Cost of Advertising since 1979 and monthly over last 12 months

  £

  1979–80

  70,000

  1980–81

  320,000

  1981–82

  400,000

  1982–83

  360,000

  1983–84

  500,000

  1984–85

  320,000

  1985–86

  1,220,000

  1986–87

  12,300,000

  1987–88

  4,100,000

  1988–89

  4,400,000

  1989–90

  1,800,000

  1990–91

  500,000

  1991–92

  12,600,000

  1992–93

  4,300,000

  Last 12 months

  December 1992

  1,555,460

  January 1993

  920,006

  February 1993

  34,440

  March 1993

  1,046,965

  April 1993

  Nil

  May 1993

  Nil

  June 1993

  155,329

  July 1993

  Nil

  August 1993

  928,438

  September 1993

  675,035

  October 1993

  15,586

  November 1993

  1,685,833

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of press notices issued by the Employment Department in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  365

  1980

  304

  1981

  313

  1982

  297

  1983

  297

  1984

  245

  1985

  317

  1986

  343

  1987

  301

  1988

  301

  1989

  341

  1990

  427

  1991

  418

  1992

  302

  11993

  249

  1To date.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the 858
  estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in (a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following figures show the Employment Department's spend for 1992–93 and expenditure plans for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  (i) The final outturn for the recurrent costs of the Department for 1992–93 is £1.568 million.

  (ii) The running costs limit for 1993–94 is £1.672 million. An estimated outturn will be published in the spring in the 1994 departmental report and the unified Budget supplement.

  (iii) The Department's planned running costs expenditure for 1994–95 will be available in the unified Budget supplement and the departmental report to be published in the spring.

  The gross domestic product deflators required to calculate real terms figures are shown on page 121 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", HC 31, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the European Community directives which the Government are considering submitting for abolition, modification or replacement on grounds of subsidiarity.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the
  reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what costs have so far been incurred by the Health and Safety Executive in the course of its pay and grading review, including both the costs of external consultants and in-house staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive will assume responsibility for delegated pay bargaining on 1 April 1994. The cost incurred so far is £4,000 for computer software. Similar expenditure is anticipated in 1994. There are no additional staff costs.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what areas the Health and Safety Executive is considering for the introduction of increased, or new, charges to industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Commission has under review the scope for introducing new charges for performance by the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—of statutory functions and the provision of facilities and services. Existing charges are reviewed annually to ensure HSE's costs in discharging the functions or providing the facilities or services are fully recovered.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the Health and Safety Executive's grant-in-aid was spent in 1992–93 on(a) salaries, (b) travel and subsistence, (c) accommodation, (d) extra-mural contracts and (e) training.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive's expenditure expressed as percentage of the grant-in-aid was:
  859

  Per cent.

  (a) Salaries

  65.6

  (b) Travel and Subsistence

  5.7

  (c) Accommodation

  11.3

  (d) Extra-Mural Research and Testing Contracts

  16.6

  (e) Training

  2.6

  The Health and Safety Commission/Executive's total expenditure in 1992–93 was £211.8 million of which £171.3 million was funded by grant-in-aid.

  Construction Sites (Electricity)
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations the Health and Safety Executive has received from the European Commission in respect of the use of 110 volt equipment on construction sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Earlier this year, European Commission officials responsible for ensuring free trade in electrical equipment challenged the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—to justify its consistent encouragement of the use of 110 volt as opposed to 240 volt electrical equipment on construction sites and similar outdoor worksites.

  The European Commission has not asked that 110 volt electrical equipment be banned from use on United Kingdom construction sites, only that HSE should cease to encourage the use of this equipment in preference to 240 volt.

  Correspondence is continuing between the Commission and United Kingdom officials who are defending our position on electrical safety in high-risk sites of this type.

  Bank Holidays
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the early May day bank holiday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 1 December 1992, the Government issued a consultation document on the future of the early May bank holiday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  It is clear from the representations received by my Department that there is no clear consensus in favour of a move. While some favour permanently moving the holiday, businesses anticipate difficulties with such a change.

  In light of its goal of reducing burdens on business, the Government have decided not to move the early May bank holiday from the first Monday in May on a permanent basis. However, for 1995 only, the holiday will be held in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on the second Monday in May, to link with events on and near VE day commemorating the 50th anniversary of the ending of the second world war. In Scotland the anniversary will be marked by an additional day's bank holiday, also on the second Monday in May and for 1995 only. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is making an announcement today on the commemorative arrangements for 1995.

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for publishing the White Paper on the instruments adopted at the 79th session of the International Labour Conference 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today published the White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference", Cm. 2433.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total budget for the non-departmental public bodies for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is no overall budget for non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs—but the Government continue to keep the numbers and cost effectiveness of NDPBs under scrutiny. The total expenditure for NDPBs in 1992–93 is shown in "Public Bodies 1993", published today.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities were included on both the public appointments unit central list and reserve list for each year since its formation.

  Mr. David Davis
  Information about the number of women on the public appointments unit's list is available only from 1988:

  Public Appointments Unit's list as at 1 April

  Women

  Per cent.

  Total

  1988

  1,573

  27.5

  5,721

  1989

  1,769

  30

  5,873

  1990

  1,807

  30.5

  5,926

  1991

  1,823

  32

  5,699

  1992

  1,868

  33

  5,671

  1993

  1,712

  36.3

  4,713

  Information about the number of members of the ethnic minorities on the public appointments unit's list is not available for each year since the unit's formation. Currently, 138 individuals on the list are known to be members of the ethnic minority communities. However, since the unit only began inviting candidates to state their ethnic origin in mid-1990 this is likely to be an incomplete assessment.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing the numbers of people from each region held on both the publlic appointments unit central and reserve lists.

  Mr. David Davis
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of people on the Public Appointments Unit list

  Region

  Number

  East Anglia

  653

  East Midlands

  233

  West Midlands

  290

  861

  Region

  Number

  South East

  3,339

  Northern

  155

  North West

  307

  South West

  350

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  258

  Northern Ireland3

  11

  Scotland3

  157

  Wales3

  107

  Elsewhere

  142

  TOTAL

  25,902

  1Individuals in this category ar those who are currently living or working overseas.

  2 This figure is higher than the total number of people currently on the Public Appointment Unit's list (4,982 at 1 December 1993) as

  Breakdown of public appointments unit's list by age as at 1 April

  Age

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Under 40

  304

  299

  279

  260

  249

  238

  41 to 50

  1,108

  1,200

  1,201

  1,180

  1,172

  1,124

  51 to 60

  2,290

  2,329

  2,314

  2,282

  2,259

  2,069

  61 and over

  2,009

  2,035

  2,121

  1,967

  1,982

  1,266

  Not known

  10

  10

  11

  10

  9

  16

  Total

  5,721

  5,873

  5,926

  5,699

  5,671

  4,713

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-departmental public bodies are currently in existence; and when the annual list of such bodies will be published.

  Mr. David Davis
  On 1 April 1993, there were 358 executive bodies, 11 fewer than in 1992; 829 advisory bodies, 17 less than in 1992; 68 tribunals, two more than in 1992; and 134 boards of visitors, three more than in 1992. In total there were 1,389 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs)—a fall of 23 over 1992. Details can be found in "Public Bodies 1993" published today. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The publication also includes details of the numbers of appointments to boards and tribunals which are held by women and by members of the ethnic minorities. The figures show that at 1 September 1993, 28 per cent. of such appointments were held by women, and that 2.3 per cent. of such appointments were held by members of the ethnic minorities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave further details in his answers to two questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on 10 December, at column 378.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Davis
  My Department issued 190 press releases up to 13 December this year. In the 12 months to 31 December 1992, we issued 113 releases. The Department did not exist in a comparable form before 1992 and earlier figures are not therefore available.
  862
  individuals can be counted as being in more than one region if they live in one area and work in another, or if they have homes in different areas.

  3Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also maintain their own central lists.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing for both the public appointments unit central and reserve lists for each year since its formation, how many of the people on the lists were aged(a) under 30, (b) 30 to 44, (c) 45 to 54 and (d) over 55 years.

  Mr. David Davis
  The information cannot be given in the form requested. The number of people on the public appointments unit's list by age group is available only from 1988 onwards:

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

  Mr. David Davis
  Expenditure by the Office of Public Service and Science on advertising was £19,304 in 1991–92 and £608,957 in 1992–93. The figure for 1992–93 includes £589,838 in connection with the citizens charter. Figures for earlier years are not available in the form requested.

  The costs of advertising by the OPSS, including the citizens charter, in each of the last 12 months was as follows:

  £

  December 1992

  70,048

  January 1993

  3,677

  February 1993

  47,509

  March 1993

  5,376

  April 1993

  4,089

  May 1993

  22,255

  June 1993

  94,920

  July 1993

  35,878

  August 1993

  11,772

  September 1993

  47,179

  October 1993

  231,589

  November 1993

  58,199

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress towards achieving equality of opportunity for women staff in the civil service.

  Mr. David Davis
  In the past year, steady progress has been made. Women now represent 51.2 per cent. of staff in the non-industrial home civil service. There are more
  863
  women than ever before in the management grades, with improved representation in the senior grades. There is an increasing use of flexible working patterns by women and men in the civil service and further development of childcare facilities. A report on the progress made during 1992–93 towards achieving equality of opportunity for women in the civil service has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern board

  Medical

  8,210,442

  9,288,732

  10,786,951

  12,381,748

  Nursing and midwifery

  34,387,647

  36,955,307

  40,705,840

  43,072,674

  Managerial

  1,784,946

  2,614,931

  3,606,049

  4,120,506

  Administrative and clerical

  8,623,084

  10,094,044

  11,988,912

  13,437,300

  Southern board

  Medical

  7,575,299

  8,586,603

  9,620,066

  11,017,376

  Nursing and midwifery

  33,742,156

  35,761,324

  39,162,441

  42,337,341

  Managerial

  1,653,891

  2,394,217

  3,277,790

  3,824,360

  Administrative and clerical

  6,666,472

  7,566,225

  8,515,539

  9,700,053

  Eastern board

  Medical

  35,894,014

  38,970,147

  43,475,622

  48,752,455

  Nursing and midwifery

  101,627,840

  107,421,303

  118,280,999

  124,805,719

  Managerial

  4,387,540

  7,063,168

  10,482,805

  11,692,542

  Administrative and clerical

  25,243,937

  28,616,370

  32,697,561

  35,914,746

  Western board

  Medical

  7,343,414

  8,124,386

  9,260,413

  10,546,166

  Nursing and midwifery

  34,521,277

  37,242,366

  40,937,151

  43,719,361

  Managerial

  1,197,128

  1,738,941

  2,404,004

  3,104,756

  Administrative and clerical

  6,478,957

  7,456,332

  8,560,506

  9,435,497

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each health and social services board, the number of(a) administrative and clerical staff, by grade, and (b) managerial staff by grade since 1989.

  Northern Ireland Administrative and Clerical Staff at 30 September

  EHSSB

  NHSSB

  SHSSB

  WHSSB

  Total

  Year

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  1989

  3,411

  3,018.15

  1,227

  1,075.03

  993

  836.22

  867

  784.09

  6,438

  5,713.49

  1990

  3,643

  3,250.08

  1,327

  1,169.40

  1,012

  888.93

  930

  859.89

  6,912

  6,168.30

  1991

  3,965

  3,554.54

  1,488

  1,325.39

  1,118

  966.92

  999

  912.00

  7,570

  6,758.85

  1992

  4,174

  3,719.56

  1,565

  1,395.21

  1,162

  1,044.18

  1,099

  1,006.00

  8,000

  7,164.95

  1993

  4,064

  3,621.47

  1,680

  1,489.93

  1,196

  1,060.93

  1,127

  1,017.82

  8,067

  7,190.15

  1WTE = Whole Time Equivalent.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each health and social services board, the number of(a) medical staff by grade and (b) nursing and midwifery staff since 1989.

  Medical staff by board by grade (headcount)

  30 September 1989

  30 September 1990

  30 September 1991

  30 September 1992

  Eastern board

  Consultants

  379

  389

  400

  402

  Associate specialists

  38

  38

  28

  28

  Senior registrars

  100

  102

  107

  117

  Registrars

  104

  107

  101

  97

  Senior house officers

  303

  310

  280

  326

  Pre-reg house officers

  106

  102

  104

  102

  TOTAL

  1,030

  1,048

  1,020

  1,072

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average annual cost for each health and social services board of employing(a) medical staff, (b) nursing and midwifery staff, (c) managerial staff and (d) administrative and clerical staff since 1989.

  Mr. Ancram
  The total salary costs for each health and social services board are as follows:

  Mr. Ancram
  The information in the format requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the table shows the combined managerial, administrative and clerical staff levels in the four boards since 1989.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  865

  30 September 1989

  30 September 1990

  30 September 1991

  30 September 1992

  Northern board

  Consultants

  75

  76

  81

  86

  Associate specialists

  17

  16

  11

  11

  Senior registrars

  6

  5

  5

  7

  Registrars

  15

  15

  12

  9

  Senior house officers

  84

  88

  104

  108

  Pre-reg house officers

  19

  20

  18

  18

  TOTAL

  216

  220

  231

  239

  Southern board

  Consultants

  68

  69

  70

  75

  Associate specialists

  10

  11

  7

  8

  Senior registrars

  6

  4

  4

  5

  Registrars

  11

  8

  10

  10

  Senior house officers

  71

  82

  84

  85

  Pre-reg house officers

  22

  19

  21

  24

  TOTAL

  188

  193

  196

  207

  Western board

  Consultants

  73

  73

  78

  80

  Associate specialists

  8

  8

  5

  5

  Senior registrars

  9

  9

  10

  10

  Registrars

  10

  9

  14

  15

  Senior house officers

  65

  74

  72

  71

  Pre-reg house officers 16

  16

  18

  20

  20

  TOTAL

  181

  191

  199

  201

  Northern Ireland nursing and midwifery staff

  EHSSB

  NHSSB

  SHSSB

  WHSSB

  Total

  Nurse Type

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  at 30 September 1989

  Trained

  7,400

  6,072.31

  2,456

  2,098.31

  2,361

  1,962.86

  2,254

  2,066.26

  14,471

  12,199.74

  Student

  1,782

  1,777.00

  279

  279.00

  291

  290.00

  370

  365.00

  2,722

  2,711.00

  Others

  1,809

  1,480.79

  445

  404.74

  585

  516.60

  443

  430.13

  3,282

  2,832.26

  Total

  10,991

  9,330.10

  3,180

  2,782.05

  3,237

  2,769.46

  3,067

  2,861.39

  20,475

  17,743.00

  at 30 September 1990

  Trained

  7,358

  5,998.35

  2,466

  2,114.27

  2,399

  1,952.78

  2,312

  2,093.04

  14,535

  12,158.44

  Student

  1,833

  1,825.60

  247

  247.00

  207

  206.00

  373

  371.00

  2,660

  2,649.60

  Others

  1,942

  1,591.51

  435

  392.37

  612

  520.44

  461

  442.87

  3,450

  2,947.19

  Total

  11,133

  9,415.46

  3,148

  2,753.64

  3,218

  2,679.22

  3,146

  2,906.91

  20,645

  17,755.23

  at 30 September 1991

  Trained

  7,408

  6,016.02

  2,530

  2,158.25

  2,431

  1,955.45

  2,319

  2,087.90

  14,688

  12,217.62

  Student

  1,415

  1,410.60

  150

  150.00

  138

  138.00

  353

  352.00

  2,056

  2,050.60

  Others

  2,110

  1,746.38

  455

  411.40

  655

  547.57

  502

  485.57

  3,722

  3,190.92

  Total

  10,933

  9,173.00

  3,135

  2,719.65

  3,224

  2,641.02

  3,174

  2,925.47

  20,466

  17,459.14

  at 30 September 1992

  Trained

  7,286

  5,858.66

  2,561

  2,151.51

  2,498

  2,000.72

  2,357

  2,087.65

  14,702

  12,098.54

  Student

  894

  888.56

  60

  60.00

  40

  40.00

  165

  165.00

  1,159

  1,153.56

  Others

  2,166

  1,783.14

  467

  411.61

  688

  562.50

  548

  516.97

  3,869

  3,274.22

  Total

  10,346

  8,530.36

  3,088

  2,623.12

  3,226

  2,603.22

  3,070

  2,769.62

  19,730

  16,526.32

  at 30 September 1993

  Trained

  7,171

  5,719.68

  2,606

  2,164.40

  2,564

  2,024.65

  2,385

  2,022.05

  14,726

  11,930.78

  Student

  313

  307.80

  6

  6.00

  2

  2.00

  37

  36.00

  358

  351.80

  Others

  2,212

  1,806.45

  481

  420.01

  701

  573.08

  606

  543.69

  4,000

  3,343.23

  Total

  9,696

  7,833.93

  3,093

  2,590.41

  3,267

  2,599.72

  3,028

  2,601.74

  19,084

  15,625.80

  1WTE=Whole Time Equivalent.

  866

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision currently exists in Northern Ireland for(a) children with learning difficulties and (b) children with cerebral palsy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  A wide range of services and facilities is available at special schools and special units throughout Northern Ireland for children with learning difficulties, including those with cerebral palsy and other motor disorders. Each child follows a learning programme which is individually tailored according to his or her needs (as specified in his or her statement of special educational needs), together with any necessary equipment and ancillary support.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Care is taken to ensure that my special adviser does not have access to the kind of information likely to create suspicion of impropriety. He is not involved in evaluating tenders or letting contracts.

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

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Mr. Jonathon Caine is my special adviser. His role is to provide political advice on a range of matters concerning Northern Ireland.

  Month/Year

  Belfast

  Maze

  Maghaberry

  Magilligan

  YOC

  Monthly total

  December 1991

  17

  1

  nil

  nil

  3

  21

  January 1992

  1

  2

  1

  1

  nil

  5

  February 1992

  1

  nil

  nil

  2

  1

  4

  March 1992

  6

  1

  17

  5

  1

  30

  April 1992

  3

  1

  2

  nil

  nil

  6

  May 1992

  1

  1

  nil

  3

  2

  7

  June 1992

  5

  2

  4

  nil

  nil

  11

  July 1992

  12

  1

  1

  1

  nil

  15

  August 1992

  4

  nil

  3

  1

  1

  9

  September 1992

  16

  1

  1

  nil

  nil

  18

  October 1992

  3

  1

  1

  3

  nil

  8

  November 1992

  8

  nil

  3

  nil

  nil

  11

  December 1992

  3

  2

  3

  nil

  nil

  8

  January 1993

  4

  nil

  1

  1

  nil

  6

  February 1993

  nil

  2

  1

  1

  1

  5

  March 1993

  2

  4

  1

  1

  1

  9

  April 1993

  11

  8

  1

  1

  1

  22

  May 1993

  5

  2

  1

  2

  nil

  10

  June 1993

  2

  3

  2

  nil

  nil

  7

  July 1993

  2

  16

  4

  nil

  nil

  22

  August 1993

  11

  6

  4

  nil

  nil

  21

  September 1993

  4

  3

  3

  nil

  nil

  10

  October 1993

  1

  nil

  2

  2

  nil

  5

  November 1993

  nil

  8

  nil

  nil

  nil

  8

  TOTALS

  122

  65

  56

  24

  11

  GRAND TOTAL

  278

  Note: The figures show the number of staff absent from duty on medical grounds due to physical assault by prisoners. There may be other staff who although assaulted were not injured and did not go off duty on sick leave.

  School Bus Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the capacity of the school bus provided by Ulsterbus for the morning journey from Castlereagh road to Newtownbreda high school; how many children travel each morning in this bus; whether the bus is insured for this level of service; and if he will make a statement about the safety of pupils on this bus.

  Mr. Ancram
  The maximum seating and standing capacity on buses is governed by the Public Services Vehicles Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1985.

  There are two 53-seater buses and one 49-seater bus provided by Ulsterbus for the morning journey from Castlereagh to Newtonbreda high school and other schools and colleges in the area; each of these buses may also carry up to 22 standing passengers. A recent survey by Ulsterbus showed that the maximum number of passengers carried on each bus at any time on their journey averaged 62. Ulsterbus is insured for this level of service.

  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many assaults have been made on prison officers in each Northern Ireland prison in each of the last 24 months; how many prison officers required hospital treatment in each month; and how many assaults in each month were made by(a) loyalist prisoners, (b) republican prisoners and (c) other prisoners.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The table shows the number of prison officers physically assaulted in Northern Ireland prisons in each of the last 24 months resulting in an absence from duty on medical grounds. Details of officers requiring hospital treatment, and of the affiliation of prisoners who carried out assaults, are not held centrally but will be made available by the end of January.

  School Performance Data
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department spent on the collection and publication of school performance data; if he has any plans to extend the scope of any future data to include vocational qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Expenditure on the publication of information about school performance in the 1991–92 school year was in the region of £32,000. Information to be published about school performance in the 1992–93 school year and subsequent years will include data about performance in general national vocational qualifications at intermediate and advanced level and in a range of other vocational qualifications.

  Housing Executive
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used in the selection of the chair and the executive members of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, in respect of relevant experience and qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive consists of 10 members, including a chairman and vice-chairman. Of these, three must be members nominated by the Northern Ireland Housing Council (a statutory advisory body made up of one representative from each of the 26 local councils). In considering appointments to the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive I have a responsibility to ensure that, taken as a whole, the board is balanced and reflects a mix of experience, business background and expertise to enable it to achieve the objectives for which it has been established. The work of the board, including the development of a more customer-orientated approach and appropriate business practices, means that board membership should include those with an interest in housing or related public sector policies and relevant professional, managerial and commercial experience.

  (thousands)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Estimated outturn 1993–94

  Public Service Training Council

  325

  307

  250

  302

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery, Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  9,830

  10,002

  10,226

  9,870

  Northern Ireland Council for Post Graduate Medical Education

  685

  808

  840

  859

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  295

  288

  281

  292

  Agricultural Research Institute for Northern Ireland

  2,059

  2,185

  2,263

  2,388

  Agricultural Wages Board

  3

  4

  4

  4

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  125

  123

  122

  125

  Northern Ireland Fisheries Harbour Authority

  784

  767

  761

  780

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  5,883

  6,428

  6,286

  5,926

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  846

  877

  923

  962

  Education and Library Boards (ELBs)

  416,509

  878,876

  918,337

  902,221

  Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council

  1,818

  2,625

  3,617

  4,736

  Staff Commission for ELBs

  182

  159

  176

  178

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  1,883

  1,904

  1,970

  1,887

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  2,709

  3,591

  3,885

  3,544

  Ulster Museum

  4,439

  4,177

  3,734

  3,646

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  1,635

  1,746

  1,909

  1,948

  Enterprise Ulster

  6,671

  7,581

  7,206

  7,684

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  934

  1,054

  1,252

  1,354

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  1,519

  1,690

  1,983

  2,473

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  350

  377

  406

  361

  870
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments may, in accordance with paragraphs 5.20 to 5.25 of the guide on public appointments procedures, use executive search consultants when making appointments to public bodies. To date, however, search consultants have not been used.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following appointments have been advertised:Chief Commissioner of the Planning Appeals Commission. Principal Professional Commissioner of the Planning Appeals Commission.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing, at 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".

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: Gross public spending for each executive non-departmental public body from 1990–91 to 1992–93 and the estimated outturn for 1993–94 at 1992–93 prices is shown in the table.

  My right hon. and learned Friend recently announced allocations to Northern Ireland programmes for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97. Allocations to individual public non-departmental bodies will be decided over the next few months.
  871

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Estimatedoutturn1993–94

  Health and Safety Agency

  146

  166

  173

  157

  Labour Relations Agency

  1,157

  1,259

  1,323

  1,386

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  42,861

  37,176

  33,411

  37,573

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  7,357

  7,094

  11,660

  11,902

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  1,427

  1,900

  2,329

  2,245

  Wages Council Northern Ireland

  4

  5

  8

  7

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  23,213

  22,880

  22,288

  22,584

  Laganside Corporation

  6,746

  7,513

  4,577

  4,847

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  495,760

  475,582

  468,000

  461,017

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  40,080

  39,675

  40,609

  41,513

  Training Schools

  9,063

  10,081

  11,062

  12,022

  Probation Board

  7,738

  8,594

  9,494

  9,764

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints

  532

  622

  644

  693

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  471,284

  522,936

  566,442

  592,878

  Vaughan's Charity

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Pig Production Development Committee

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of press releases issued since 1979 is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  1,444

  1980

  1,410

  1981

  1,436

  1982

  1,573

  1983

  1,719

  1984

  1,440

  1985

  1,460

  1986

  1,371

  1987

  1,252

  1988

  1,294

  1989

  1,063

  1990

  1,553

  1991

  1,294

  1992

  1,289

  1993

  1,370

  Habitats and Species Directive
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will issue a consultation paper on the implementation of the EC habitats and species directive in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultation paper on the implementation of the EC habitats and species directive in Northern Ireland was issued on 7 December 1993 and was circulated widely to interested bodies.

  The paper largely mirrors proposals put forward in the Great Britain consultation document which was issued on 4 October 1993, but takes account of Northern Ireland's distinct legislative framework.

  The closing date for responses to the paper is 21 January 1994.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information could be obtained in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. The total figure for spending on all advertising, and other promotional material for 1992–93 is £7,356,526. Of this sum £509,000 was used for security advertising, a breakdown of which is provided in the table.

  The available corresponding figures for 1985–86 and 1979–80 are £3,916,824 and £468,972 respectively.

SCOTLAND

  Caledonian Pine
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Scotland what plans he has to maintain and extend the area covered by native Caledonian pine in the next 20 years, in response to(a) the EC habitats and species directive and (b) the biodiversity convention signed at the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Government recognise Caledonian pine forest as a priority habitat type of European importance, and as a significant component of United Kingdom biodiversity in respect of its genetic, species and habitat values. We are fully committed to supporting the international initiatives referred to by my hon. Friend and have already introduced measures for the management and extension of the area covered by Caledonian pine in Scotland.

  Grants are available to private woodland owners for the regeneration and extension of native pinewoods, and since 1989, the Forestry Commission has grant-aided the planting and regeneration of over 6,000 hectares of native pines and associated broadleaves. This has increased the native pinewood area by one half. Owners of native

  873
  pinewoods are also eligible for management grants in return for maintaining their woods in a way that conserves their environmental value.

  The Forestry Commission itself has a programme of enhancing the biodiversity value of the 3,000 hectares of native pinewoods in its care, and of doubling the area by the year 2000.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many YTS or youth training places there were in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Estimated population aged 16 and 17

  Dundee city district

  Scotland

  16

  17

  16-17

  16

  17

  16-17

  1988

  2,511

  2,692

  5,203

  76,813

  81,292

  158,105

  1989

  2,211

  2,492

  4,703

  71,291

  76,069

  147,360

  1990

  2,088

  2,215

  4,303

  66,248

  70,849

  137,097

  1991

  2,012

  2,033

  4,045

  64,501

  65,750

  130,251

  1992

  1,978

  2,048

  4,026

  63,397

  64,338

  127,735

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1993,Official Report, column 639, how many letters, cards and other representations he has received from people resident in Musselburgh supporting the case for Musselburgh to remain in East Lothian; and what support he has had for his proposal to detach Musselburgh from the East Lothian local authority area.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future—The New Councils" a total of 35 letters, all of which have supported the retention of Musselburgh within East Lothian, have been received from Musselburgh residents, businesses and other organisations. In addition a number of the 14,000 postcards received as part of the East Lothian "Standing Firm" campaign have been sent from people resident in Musselburgh.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will carry out an investigation into the offering of tracts of Forestry Commission land to various conservation bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 16 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to ensure that the freedom to roam on any currently available Forestry Commission land will not be placed in jeopardy following the report of the forestry review group; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The remit of the forestry review group includes the request that it should make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the 874
  delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  Such objectives and policies include the practice of the Forestry Commission in encouraging public access to woodlands as set out in "Forestry Policy for Great Britain", copies of which are in the library.

  Ministers are well aware of the importance to many people of access and therefore, have asked the review group to take this into account when developing its advice.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy, following the report of the forestry review group, to maintain the freedom to roam on any Forestry Commission land currently available in(a) the Sheffield, Hillsborough constituency and (b) elsewhere in Britain.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Ministers are conscious of the importance to many people of access to Forestry Commission land including land in the hon. Member's constituency. They have therefore asked the review group to take the issue of public access fully into account when developing its advice.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all Forestry Commission woods in Scotland by region; and which woods are to be placed for sale under the current disposals programme.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Scotland:

  Region

  Area (hectares)

  Borders

  30,853

  Central

  29,850

  Dumfries and Galloway

  101,258

  Fife

  4,780

  Grampian

  61,555

  Highland

  236,983

  Lothian

  1,650

  Orkney

  9

  Strathclyde

  201,738

  Tayside

  40,084

  Western Isles

  867

  Details of individual forests and woodlands are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I have, however, made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The areas of forest land in Scotland currently being offered for sale by the Forestry Commission on the open market are as follows:

  Region and Name

  Area (hectares)

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Glaik

  63

  Grampian

  Barlatch

  3

  Craigmuir Wood

  34

  Crimond Hill

  25

  Cruchie Wood

  7

  Haremoss

  19

  Hillend Moss

  16

  Lauchentilly Moss

  30

  875

  Region and Name

  Area(hectares)

  Longhill

  120

  Moreseat of Hatton

  38

  Mormond Hill

  255

  New Pitsligo (2 lots)

  42

  Whitestones

  5

  Highland

  Ardelve

  26

  Balmore (Main Road)

  40

  Clava and Craggie (Lot 1)

  33

  Croftdhu

  14

  Dhivach (North)

  45

  Dhivach (South)

  77

  Dundonnell

  312

  Eilean Darach

  110

  Fain (Cpt 2038)

  22

  Fain South (Cpt 2037)

  4

  Score Farm and Roadside Strips

  17

  Storr (East)

  79

  Strathclyde

  Aucheneden

  538

  Achentorlie

  439

  Auchindrain

  234

  Carrick

  2

  Daljarrock

  52

  Dalsmirren (part)

  1,094

  Garrochoran

  192

  Highs Ugadale

  21

  Inverneill

  102

  Loch Sween

  179

  Merkins/Knockupple

  587

  Moss Priory

  71

  Scoor and Beech (Lot 5)

  360

  Tayside

  Aukleeks

  358

  Keillour

  11

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in the Central, Dumfries and Galloway, Fife, Grampian and Highland regions(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and whether he will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land;

  (2) if he will list for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in the Borders (a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and if he will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land;

  (3) if he will list for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Lothian, Orkney, Shetlands, Strathclyde, Tayside and Western Isles regions (a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and whether he will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) earlier today.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what publicly owned woodland in the Clydebank and Milngavie constituency has been put on sale in each of the past five years; and what areas are planned to be put on sale.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold
  876
  by the Forestry Commission in each region from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992 are held in the Library of the House. A list of the forest land sold by the Commission in 1993 will be drawn up and placed in the Library in the new year.

  Aucheneden—538 hectares—is the only commission woodland currently on the market in the hon. Member's constituency.

  Mr. Paddy Tippig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of which areas of Forestry Commission land assurances have been issued that they will not be privatised; and according to what criteria these decisions are made.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: Ministers will await the advice of the forestry review group before considering what action, if any, should be taken in respect of the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation there has been in relation to the national forest plan to be published shortly.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Since we did not wish the plan to pre-empt the findings of the forestry review group or to prejudice our decisions on the group's recommendations, we decided it would not be practical for the plan to go beyond drawing together the various strands of the Government's present forestry policy and programmes.

  We concluded, therefore, that there would be little benefit in consulting publicly before publishing the plan. Instead, we will be inviting comments on the plan after it has been published.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total budget for local enterprise companies in Scotland for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Stewart
  The allocation of resources to the local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I understand that total budgets for the local enterprise companies for 1992–93 and 1993–94 amount to £382.1 million and £379.2 million respectively, but that budget allocations for 1994–95 have yet to be determined.

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of excess winter deaths in Scotland in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information available is given in the table.

  Number of deaths by quarter, Scotland, 1990–92

  Year

  (Quarter)

  Number of deaths

  1990

  1

  16,933

  2

  15,105

  3

  13,737

  4

  15,752

  1991

  1

  16,278

  2

  14,891

  3

  13,814

  877

  Year

  (Quarter)

  Number of deaths

  4

  16,058

  1992

  1

  16,511

  2

  14,668

  3

  14,024

  4

  15,734

  Seals
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his estimates for each of the last three available years of the number of each type of seal resident in Scottish waters and the varieties and value of fish taken by such seals in each of these years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Both grey and common seals are resident in Scottish waters. Estimated grey seal numbers are as follows:

  Number

  1990

  79,000

  1991

  86,900

  1992

  92,800

  Comparable figures are not available for common seals which are presently estimated at 24,100.

  Research has shown that seals are opportunistic feeders which consume a wide variety of species including those of commercial importance such as cod, whiting, various flat fishes, herring, sprat and sandeels as well as salmon. No recent estimate is available of the value of the commercial fish consumed by seals in Scottish waters.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest estimates by the sea mammals research unit of the numbers of grey and common seals in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The latest grey and common seal populations in Scotland as estimated by the sea mammal research unit are 92,800 and 24,100 respectively.

  Sheriff Court Fees
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider the proposed increases in sheriff court fees; and what representations he has received from the Law Society on this matter.

  Mr. Lang
  The changes to Sheriff Court fees, which are projected to lead to an overall 12 per cent. increase in income, are included in the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment (No. 2) Order 1983 which was laid before Parliament on 10 December.

  My noble and learned Friend has received a number of representations from the Law Society of Scotland to which he has responded clarifying the basis of the changes.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to local authorities, concerning features to be incorporated in provision of new domestic water supplies, with a view to future adaptation for metering.
  878
  Sir Hector Monro
  No requirements have been placed on local authorities in Scotland concerning the future adaptation of new domestic water supplies for metering. Metering is a voluntary option we made available to householders from 1 April this year. The technical adaptations necessary are matters for discussion between regional or island councils as water authorities and the individual consumer.

  In May my Department issued a circular to water authorities drawing their attention to the new optional provision (in the Local Government Finance Act 1992) and highlighting certain matters such as meter siting and payment terms that they might wish to take into account when meeting a consumer's request for a meter. I am arranging for a copy of the circular (SOEnD 10/93) to be placed in the Library.

  Department of Education
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what public expenditure headings costs of public relations, publications, and circulars to schools, parents and local authorities, incurred by the Scottish Office Department of Education are shown; and how much has been expended under each heading since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1979, the Scottish Office Education Department (formerly the Scottish Education Department) has issued a wide range of materials to local authorities, schools and parents including consultation documents, circulars, regulations and publications.

  The cost of these are included under a variety of public expenditure headings, either within Departmental running costs or within the votes appropriate to the subjects to which they relate. No single headings cover only costs related to these reports, circulars or publications. It is therefore not possible to identify such costs separately.

  Kilgarth Tip, Coatbridge
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 411, if he will publish the correspondence relating to his decision about the application by City of Glasgow district council in respect of Kilgarth tip, Coatbridge.

  Mr. Lang
  I do not intend to publish the correspondence relating to my decision in the Kilgarth case. It is our normal practice to treat such papers as private matters involved only the parties directly concerned. After decision letters are issued it is for each party to decide whether, or to what extent, it wishes to disclose details of the case.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Mr. Lang
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. Copies of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.
  879
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are used in the selection of the chair and the executive members of(a) Scottish Enterprise, (b) Highlands and Islands Enterprise, (c) the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and (d) Scottish Homes, in respect of relevant experience and qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend is required by the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 to appoint to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise persons who appear to him to have knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of the functions of those bodies (regard being had to the principle that equality of opportunity should be promoted as between men and women).

  Criteria for the selection of the chairman and executive members of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council are set out in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 and are as follows:
  (a) persons who appear to the Secretary of State for Scotland to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of higher education and, in appointing such persons, he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of higher education or in carrying responsibility for such provision; and
  (b) persons who appear to the Secretary of State for Scotland to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession.

  The appointment of members of Scottish Homes is also made having regard to the relevant experience and qualities of potential candidates and according to the particular expertise required by Scottish Homes at the time.

  Individuals are appointed by the Secretary of State in their own right and not as representatives of any organisation, or interest group.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Lang
  No specific non-executive appointments to public bodies sponsored by my Department have been advertised since April 1992. However, there is a major publicity campaign, including press advertisement, each year seeking members for children's panels. In the summer of 1992 advertisements also sought applications from those interested in serving on health boards and NHS trusts.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of(a) Scottish Enterprise, (b) Highlands and Island Enterprise, (c) local enterprise companies and (d) Scottish Homes; what guidelines he has issued concerning the composition of these boards; and what specific guidance has been given on how many board members should be (i) from ethnic minorities, (ii) women, (iii) from the local business sector, (iv) from local authorities and (v) from trade unions.

  Mr. Stewart
  The minimum and maximum numbers of possible board members of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are laid down in the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 while the maximum number of board members for Scottish Homes is laid down in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, all as set out 880
  in the table. My right hon. Friend is responsible for making appointments to the boards of each of these bodies guided by the requirements of the relevant Act.

  Guidelines published by the Scottish Office Industry Department before the initial award of operating contracts to local enterprise companies stipulated that at least two-thirds of their board members should be drawn from the local private sector, that boards should number a maximum of 12 and minimum of nine (for those contracting with Scottish Enterprise) or seven (for those contracting with Highlands and Islands Enterprise), and that each local enterprise company would have to demonstrate that it had obtained the commitment of a broad range of interested parties in the area it was to cover.

  Possible numbers of board members

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Scottish Enterprise

  9

  12

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  7

  12

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  10

  1No statutory minimum.

  Note: Minimum and maximum numbers quoted are inclusive of the chief executive at each of the three bodies, who is an ex-officio board member in all cases.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of chairpersons and non-executive board members of local enterprise councils.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are 22 local enterprise companies (the Scottish equivalent of training and enterprise councils) each of which has a chairman. Arrangements governing the appointment of non-executive board members are operational matters for individual companies, within national guidelines which stipulate that boards should number a maximum of 12 and minimum of nine (for those contracting with Scottish Enterprise) or seven (for those contracting with Highlands and Islands Enterprise).

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the proposed public local inquiry into the Parklea site in the Inverclyde enterprise zone will take place; and where it will be held.

  Mr. Stewart
  Once the relevant papers have been received from Inverclyde district council, it should be possible for a public local inquiry to be held into the Parklea proposal within six months or so. The inquiry will be held as near to the proposed development site as is practical.

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

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure by my Department on advertising has been:

  £

  1988–89

  994,000

  1989–90

  2,081,000

  1990–91

  1,542,000

  881

  £

  1991–92

  1,550,000

  1992–93

  1,366,000

  Figures in the form requested are not available for 1979–80 to 1987–88. Total expenditure on information publicity for each year of that period was:

  £

  1979–80

  263,000

  1980–81

  362,000

  1981–82

  393,000

  1982–83

  386,000

  1983–84

  360,000

  1984–85

  704,000

  1985–86

  677,000

  1986–87

  857,000

  1987–88

  1,094,000

  Details of advertising expenditure by my Department for each of the last 12 months is not immediately available and I shall reply further to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the date on which each advertising campaign initiated by his Department since 1987 was launched and its duration.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advertising campaigns have been undertaken by his Department each year since 1979; if he will list the cost of each campaign, the extent of each campaign, the advertising agency employed in each case, the subject matter and the office within his Department which sanctioned the spending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press releases his Department has issued since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The following table shows the number of news releases issued by the Scottish Office information directorate in each year since 1985. The information for the years prior to that is not available.

  Total news releases issued

  1985

  1,660

  1986

  1,793

  1987

  2,070

  1988

  2,231

  1989

  2,089

  1990

  2,008

  1991

  2,028

  1992

  1,993

  11993

  1,914

  1As at 10 December 1993.

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  Information covering provision for running costs spending, including superannuation, in the Scottish Office and its agencies, is as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Estimated Outturn

  Actual

  319

  326

  In 1992–93 terms

  319

  316

  The GDP deflators required to calculate real terms figure are shown on page 121 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95" (HC 31).

  Details of planned provision for 1994–95 and subsequent years will be published in my departmental report "Serving Scotland's Needs" in the new year.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by local authority area, at what age it is the practice to initiate a record of needs for children with learning difficulties; and if he will outline the statutory obligations in this respect.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Education authorities have a statutory duty, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 as amended, to establish which children aged two and over who have come to the authorities' attention as having special educational needs require the opening of a record of needs. Authorities must make provision for any special educational needs which are so recorded.

  Wool Marketing Scheme
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the prescriptive resolution under the British wool marketing scheme, particularly relating to foreign merchants buying British wool; what measures his Department intends to implement to halt the alleged disadvantage that British merchants are suffering compared to their foreign counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of hon. Members and from one company of wool merchants about the British Wool Marketing Board's prescriptive resolution of 1981 which exempts producers from the statutory monopoly if they are selling their wool direct for export to an overseas buyer. Although this means that an overseas buyer can, unlike a United Kingdom merchant, buy wool direct from a producer, I do not believe that in practice this damages the interests of United Kingdom merchants.
  883
  Retention of the board's statutory monopoly provides all producers with an outlet for their wool, including those in the more remote areas. It has the full support of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Confederation of British Wool Textiles.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of speech therapists employed in each health board area indicating, in each case, any shortfall which exists.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number, in whole-time equivalent terms, of qualified speech therapists employed in the national health service at 31 March 1993 in each health board area is given in the table. Details of the funded establishment for qualified speech therapists in each health board area are not held centrally.

  Whole-time equivalent qualified speech therapists in the national health service in Scotland at 31 March 1993

  Health board

  whole-time equivalents

  Argyll and Clyde

  38.0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  31.5

  Borders

  13.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  19.1

  Fife

  40.3

  Forth Valley

  21.4

  Grampian

  52.4

  Greater Glasgow

  83.1

  Highland

  23.6

  Lanarkshire

  44.3

  Lothian

  69.3

  Orkney

  2.5

  Shetland

  2.0

  Tayside

  39.7

  Western Isles

  5.7

  Distance Selling Directive
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the proposed EC directive on distance selling; if he intends to raise the matter with European partners; what evidence he has to suggest that the directive may cause problems for hoteliers and other businesses in Scotland; what action he intends to take to protect Scottish business; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have received no such representations. I am, however, fully aware of the problems which the provisions of this directive, if implemented, would pose to the tourist industry in Scotland. The Government are making appropriate representations.

  Loch Lomond Report
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial resources he is providing to Scottish Enterprise for the implementation of the Loch Lomond working party report.

  Mr. Stewart
  The resources which my right hon. Friend makes available to Scottish Enterprise are not generally 884
  allocated for a particular activity or purpose; and it is 'For Scottish Enterprise and the relevant local enterprise companies to determine the level of resources to be devoted to implementation of the Loch Lomond working party report out of the budgets made available to them.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his current target for the ratio of nursing teachers to students he considers appropriate; and what plans he has to review it.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 December 1993 at column 92.

  Road Bridge, Queensferry
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to compensate contractors invited to bid to construct a new road bridge across the Firth of Forth at Queensferry; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1993] : We have suggested that unsuccessful tenderers in any competition might have a proportion of their properly incurred bid costs up to £500,000 reimbursed by the successful tenderer. Tenderers might also be required to lodge a bond, for a similar amount, designed to secure conforming bids. These measures are consistent with practices elsewhere in the construction industry in relation to projects of such size and complexity where bid costs can be very large. They will stimulate competition to the ultimate benefit of users of the facilities.

  No decision on whether or not to proceed to tender will be made until the results of feasibility studies now under way are available.

  Mr. Laurence Peterken
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department was consulted by the Greater Glasgow health board about the dismissal of Laurence Peterken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Officials of the Scottish Office were not consulted by Greater Glasgow health board in relation to the proposed dismissal on 2 November of Mr. Peterken.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the report to be published of the investigation into the dismissal of Mr. Laurence Peterken as general manager of Greater Glasgow health board; and if he will list those consulted in the course of the investigation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: The investigation by the chief executive, NHS in Scotland, is not yet completed.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland further to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 179, about the appointment of Mr. Peterken to the NHS Management Executive, if he will give details of the issues which Mr. Peterken is to examine.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Mr. Peterken will review the future organisation of the Common Services Agency.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: There is a total of 263 subject files in my Department which carry the marking "Not for NAO Eyes".

  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with guidance from the Treasury and agreed by the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO are not automatically available to NAO while they are current.

  The marking is removed once the subject matter is no longer current. The Scottish Office audit unit check from time to time to ensure that the marking is being used and removed correctly.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest information available to him about the prevalence of the illegal taking of drugs by injection in prisons in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: Independent research undertaken by Power et al over a period of 18 months during 1990 and 1991, when the prison population was some 4,800, found that 28 per cent. (154 prisoners) of a representative sample of 559 prisoners admitted to injecting drugs at some stage prior to imprisonment. A number 15 per cent. (85 prisoners) had stopped injecting prior to imprisonment, principally to reduce the risk of HIV infection. That left 12 per cent. (69 prisoners) still injecting following imprisonment, although most of this group were also attempting various forms of risk reduction such as stopping sharing, sharing less or sterilising before sharing.

  The proportion of the total sample who admitted to injecting drugs at some stage during a prison sentence was 8 per cent. (43 prisoners), but 4 per cent. (23 prisoners) had subsequently stopped injecting, again principally as a means of reducing risk of HIV infection. That left 4 per cent. (20 prisoners) continuing to inject at the time of the research of whom 3 per cent. (17 prisoners) had shared needles in prison. The full sample of prisoners was also asked how many prisoners they personally "knew" (ie had seen or firmly believed) to be involved in intravenous drug misuse in prison. The answer averaged out at 2.7 per cent. of prisoners.

  Following the outbreak of HIV infection at HMP Glenochil, 227 out of the 378 adult prisoners there took up the offer in June of independent counselling. Of these 76 (33 per cent.) said that they had injected drugs at some time in their lives and 33 of that group (15 per cent. of the total) admitted injecting at some point while in Glenochil.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been charged with attempting to smuggle drugs into prisons while visiting inmates this year in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  886
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners were put on report for being in possession of drugs this year in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]:In 1992–93, 838 prisoners were put on report for being in possession of illicit drugs or injecting equipment.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made as to the extent of the availability of illegal drugs in Scottish prisons; and what action is being taken to prevent importation and use.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: It is difficult to make an accurate assessment of the true level of the availability of illegal drugs in prisons, but there are some indicators which help to measure trends. Any prisoners found in possession of illicit drugs or injecting equipment is guilty of a disciplinary offence under the prison rules. The number of recorded offences for the last three years were 1990–91—749, 1991–92—845 and 1992–93—838. Taking account of the prisoner population increase from an average of 4,738 in 1990–91 to 5,395 in 1991-93, the number of recorded offences suggests a slight decrease in the level of drug taking in prisons. Although detailed figures are not kept, most of these offences involve cannabis. A further indictor of drug activity is the number of finds of injecting equipment uncovered through security checks: 1990–91—72, 1991–92—96, and 1992–93—66.

  The Scottish Prison Service makes strenuous attempts to minimise the amount of drugs entering prisons. These include the use of closed circuit television at visits, sniffer dogs, lockers for visitors' hand luggage, staff surveillance at visits, strip searching of prisoners suspected of receiving drugs following visits, use of "closed" visits for those prisoners who abuse the visits facility and regular close liaison with the police and other agencies.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantity of drugs and implements for drug use have been found in Scottish prisons in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: Any prisoner found in possession of illicit drugs or equipment is guilty of a disciplinary offence under the prison rules. Information on the quantity of drugs and implements is not collected centrally, but most drug finds in prison are extremely small and comprise of a few tablets or a small amount of cannabis. The number of recorded offences for the last three years were: 1990–91—749, 1991–92—845 and 1992–93—838. The number of finds of injecting equipment uncovered through security checks were: 1990–91—72, 1991–92—96 and 1992–93—66.

  Caledonian Paper Mill
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about prospects for inward investment in the second Caledonian paper mill.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 December 1993): All discussions between my Department and companies concerning future investment decisions are held on a strict commercially confidential basis.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his Department's policy on the provision of speech therapy for children with special educational needs; and if he is satisfied that this policy is being implemented throughout Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Education authorities have a statutory duty to ensure appropriate provision of speech therapy where this has been identified as a special educational need in a child's record of needs. Under new arrangements which came into force in 1992, all education authorities now contract with health boards for the provision of speech therapy services to meet the needs of recorded children and an additional £2 million was included in the local government financial settlement for 1992–93 for this purpose.

  These new arrangements have been very effective. However, when we implemented them we did not know whether the amount of money set aside would be sufficient. We therefore undertook a joint review of costs with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and, following that review, we have concluded that an annual amount of £3 million is needed to provide fully for speech therapy for children with records of needs. As a result, I am announcing today that an additional £1 million is being included in the local government settlement for 1994–95 for this purpose.

  I am confident that these extra resources will ensure that some of our less fortunate children receive the assistance we are all so concerned they should have.

  Patients' Travel
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board the budget for patient travel.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Health Board

  1993–94 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  224,000

  Ayrshire and Arran

  75,500

  Borders

  15,600

  Dumfries and Galloway

  44,300

  Fife

  41,700

  Forth Valley

  31,300

  Grampian

  156,300

  Greater Glasgow

  200,600

  Highland

  352,200

  Lanarkshire

  65,100

  Lothian

  83,400

  Tayside

  49,500

  Orkney

  380,200

  Shetland

  481,200

  Western Isles

  654,100

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by health board, for each year since 1990(a) the number of patients flown to the mainland, (b) the number of medical staff flown to the mainland, (c) the number of visiting medical staff flying from the mainland and (d) the number of flights which will be affected by the imposition of air passenger duty.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: This information is not held centrally.
  888
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the additional cost to(a) Orkney health board and (b) Shetland health board in respect of sending patients to the United Kingdom mainland for treatment as a result of the proposed introduction of air passenger duty.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: Aircraft of under 10 tonnes maximum take-off weight, or seating under 20 passengers are to be exempted from the new excise duty. In practice this will exclude air ambulances operated by the Scottish ambulance service and there will be no additional cost to these health boards.

  It is not expected that Orkney and Shetland health boards will require to purchase many tickets for non-emergency patients to be carried on fare paying scheduled flights to the mainland. Any additional costs would be more than offset by the 4.5 per cent. increase in funding for the NHS in Scotland which my right hon. Friend has announced for the next financial year.

  Hospitals, Ayrshire
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what facilities in Ayrshire Central and Ravenspark hospitals have been closed by the Community Health Care NHS trust since its establishment;

  (2) what facilities in Crosshouse hospital have been closed by the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust since its establishment;

  (3) if he will make a statement about Ayrshire and Arran health board's plans for the future of Ravenspark hospital; and what steps the health board is taking to safeguard the interests of the hospital patients;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the refurbishment of the reception area of Crosshouse hospital by the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust; if he will indicate what is the source of funding for this refurbishment; and what refurbishment work was carried out in the hospital before the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust being established.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on Thursday 9 December, at columns 350-51.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the implications for health boards of the imposition of air passenger duty.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: There are exemptions to the new excise duty announced by the Chancellor in the Budget statement. The new excise duty applies only in respect of fare paying passengers and does not apply to air ambulances for emergency cases. Health boards do not make many arrangements for non-emergency patients to be carried on fare-paying scheduled flights. Most importantly for Scotland aircraft of under 10 tonnes take-off weight or seating under 20 passengers are exempt. In practice this will exclude many of the inter-island flights.

  The implications for health boards would therefore be minimal and would be more than offset by the 4.5 per cent. increase in funding for the NHS in Scotland which my right hon. Friend has announced for the next financial year.

  Clean Technology
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken by the Scottish Office to promote the use of clean technology by Scottish industry; what grants are available to assist industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: The Scottish Office promotes the use of clean technology by raising awareness and by publicising and directing Scottish companies towards schemes of financial assistance which can assist such projects. Assistance may come from a variety of sources. For example, financial support is available under research and development promotion schemes, such as the small firms merit award for research and technology, support for products under research (SPUR) and the innovation element of the regional enterprise grants scheme, for companies planning to develop new products or processes—including those relating to clean technology.

  Scottish companies will be eligible for funding under the new £16 million environmental technology best practice programme, which is to be operated jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and Department of the Environment.

  Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many commissioners have been appointed under section 33 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993; when they were given their appointments; how many are women; what is the length of their term of office; what is their remuneration; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: Under the provisions of section 33 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 which will come into effect on 1 January 1994, a commissioner to take a child's evidence will be appointed by a judge on application. The appointment will last for the duration of the commission.

  Remuneration to the commissioner will depend on a number of factors including the commissioner's legal seniority, the duration of the commission and its location.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many copies of the booklet entitled "The Highlands and Islands Objective 1 Plan, 1994-99" have been published; by whom they were printed and published; what was the total cost of the printing, publication and distribution of the document; how many requests for copies have been received; and if he will list those individuals and organisations to whom copies have been sent.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: The Highlands and Islands objective 1 plan 1994-1999 was published internally by the Scottish Office. One hundred and seventy copies were printed and distributed at an estimated cost of £2,700. These have been distributed primarily to the Highlands and Islands Partnership, to organisations responding to the consultation exercise on
  890
  the objective 1 plan, and to other organisations, including Government Departments, with an interest in European structural funds in other areas of Scotland and the United Kingdom. These organisations are listed in the table. In addition, the Scottish Office has also sent copies of the objective 1 plan to a small number of other organisations and individuals, including the hon. Member, specifically requesting a copy:

  Angus District Council

  Argyll and Bute District Council

  Argyll and the Islands Enterprise

  Association of Community Enterprises in the Highlands and Islands

  Badenoch and Strathspey District Council

  British Waterways Board

  Caithness and Sutherland Enterprise

  Caithness District Council

  Caledonian MacBrayne

  Central Regional

  Council Citizens Advice Scotland

  City of Glasgow District Council

  Comunn na Gaidhlig

  Cromarty Firth Ports Authority

  Cunninghame District Council

  Department of Employment

  Department of the Environment

  The Department of Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of Transport

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  European Commission

  Fife Regional Council

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Forestry Commission

  Forth Valley Enterprise

  Grampian Regional Council

  The Hebridian Trust

  Highland Communities Health Unit

  Highland Community Care Forum

  Highland Regional Council

  Highlands and Islands Airports

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Highlands and Islands Forum

  Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board

  Inverness and Nairn Enterprise

  Inverness College

  Inverness District Council

  Inverness Harbour Trust

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  Lerwick Harbour Trust

  Lewis Council of Social Service

  Lews Castle College

  Lochaber District Council

  Lochaber Limited

  Mallaig Harbour Authority

  Merseyside Task Force

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise

  Moray District Council

  Moray Firth Radio

  Nairn District Council

  National Farmers' Union of Scotland

  National Trust for Scotland

  Orkney Islands Council

  Red Deer Commission

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Ross and Cromarty Enterprise

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  The Royal Zoological Society

  ScotRail

  Scottish Agricultural College

  Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society

  Scottish Conservation Projects Trust

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Service

  Scottish Crofters' Union

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Homes

  891

  Scottish Hydro-Electric

  Scottish Native Woods Campaign

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Scrabster Harbour Trust

  Shetland Enterprise

  Shetland Islands Council

  Skye and Lochalsh Enterprise

  Skye Environmental Centre

  Stirling District Council

  Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commission

  Strathclyde Integrated Development Operation

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Sutherland District Council

  Tayside Regional Council

  The UK Permanent Representation to the European Community

  Ullapool Harbour Trust

  The Welsh Office

  Western Isles Enterprise

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Wick Harbour Trust

  The Wise Group, Glasgow

  World Wildlife Fund Scotland

  Local Enterprise Companies
  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 of local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1993]: The boards of local enterprise companies consist of directors who have formed companies under the Companies Act 1985, and have entered into contracts with Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The arrangements for appointing chairmen and directors are a matter for individual local enterprise companies, subject to the terms of their respective memoranda and articles of association, which must be approved by Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Harbours
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers he has to aid improvements, improving safety, of islands and mainland harbours.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 December 19931: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to provide financial assistance to harbour authorities, including Caledonian MacBrayne, for the improvement of transport piers and harbours in the highlands and islands. He also has power to assist fishery harbour works throughout Scotland. The relevant legislation is as follows. Harbour authorities are responsible for safety.
  Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897.
  Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960.
  The Fisheries Act 1955.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the 1993–94 estimated outturn and (b) the 1994–95 planned provision of central government net capital expenditure in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]:The information is (a) £1,125 million and (b) £1,206 million respectively, resulting in an increase of over £80 million or 7.1 per cent.
  892
  The figures for both years exclude expenditure brought forward from previous years under the end-year flexibility arrangements. They also exclude capital expenditure funded from the European regional development fund.

  The planned provision for 1994–95 is provisional since detailed expenditure allocations are subject to revision until final plans are published in the departmental report "Serving Scotland's Needs" and the supply estimates.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many YTS or YT places there were in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available;

  (2) what were the numbers of YTS or YT places contracted with managing agents in (a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested on YTS/YT places contracted with managing agents is available only in respect of Scotland as a whole. Numbers of places were as set out in the table.

  YTS/YT places contracted with managing agents

  Number of places

  At 31 March 1987

  55,384

  At 31 March 1988

  63,285

  At 31 March 1989

  62,493

  At 31 March 1990

  60,985

  Figures for the period before 1986–87 are not available. On 1 April 1991 Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their networks of local enterprise companies took over responsibility for delivering youth training in Scotland. Local enterprise companies contract to provide numbers of training weeks, and numbers of places are not therefore available. Figures for 1990–91 are not available because of disruption to the management information gathering system during 1990–91.

DEFENCE

  Ground Proximity Warning Systems
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current in-service date for the ground proximity warning system for the Jaguar aircraft;

  (2) if he will list the dates of key project milestones for the development of ground proximity warning systems for (a) the Tornado GR, (b) the Tornado F3, (c) the Harrier GR5/7, (d) the Hawk, (e) The Tucano and (f) The Hercules; what plans he has to fit such a system to the Eurofighter in RAF service; and what other types in United Kingdom military service are under consideration for fitment of such a device.

  Mr. Hanley
  The only such project which currently has formal project milestones is the fitment of a ground proximity warning system to the Jaguar aircraft, the in-service date for which is 1997. We are also considering fitting such systems to the Tornado GR 1/1 A and F3, Harrier GR7 and T10, Hawk, Tucano and Eurofighter 2000 aircraft.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles, names of contractors and dates of all external research contracts on behalf of the National Air Traffic Services since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department does not place contracts on behalf of NATS. This is done by the Civil Aviation Authority. Additionally, information relating to contracts placed before 1988 is not held centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort. However, I am able to provide the following details.

  Since 1 April 1988, some 378 contracts have been placed. These contracts cover a wide range of subjects including the development of improved air traffic control systems; airport and airspace capacity studies; safety studies; cost-benefit analyses; development/improvement of communication, navigation and surveillance systems.

  Details of all companies to whom contracts have been awarded since 1985 again could not be provided without disproportionate cost. Companies awarded contracts since April 1991 are:

  AGI

  AEA Technology

  AA Quinn (Builder) Ltd.

  ABA Electronics Ltd.

  ACT Logsys Ltd.

  ACWL

  Adelard

  Admiral Computing Ltd.

  Air Hanson Ltd.

  Alan A Woodfield

  Alcatel TITN Inc

  ASHTEC

  Aubrey Watson

  Aztec Business Services Ltd.

  B A Wyndham

  B T Aeronautical and Maritime

  BAe SEMA Systems Ltd.

  Berkshire Engineering Consultants

  BNR Europe Ltd.

  Booz, Allen and Hamilton International

  Brameur Ltd.

  British Airways PLC

  CGP Ltd.

  CACI Ltd.

  Cambridge Consultants Ltd.

  Canadian Marconi Ltd.

  Centre for Software Maintenance

  City University

  Clark Engineering and Construction Ltd.

  Clark Masts Teksam Ltd.

  Computer Recognition Systems Ltd.

  Cossor Electronics Ltd.

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  CSS Trident Plc

  Data-Logic Ltd.

  Defence Research Agency (Bedford)

  Defence Research Agency (Malvern)

  Dept. of Civil Aviation, Holland

  E-Systems

  EASAMS Ltd.

  EDS Scicon Ltd. ELTA Electronics Ltd.

  ERA Technology Ltd.

  Flow Solutions Ltd.

  Four Elements Ltd.

  GEC-Avionics Ltd.

  GEC-Ferranti Ltd.

  GEC-Marconi Research Ltd.

  Gultronics Computer Centre

  Hall and Tawse Scotland Ltd.

  Hewlett Packard Ltd.

  Honeywell Inc.

  ISVR Consultants Ltd.

  894

  ICOM (UK) Ltd.

  Information Processing Ltd.

  Intergraph (UK) Ltd.

  IPSYS Software Ltd.

  JMEC Ltd.

  JRC (UK) Ltd.

  Lancaster Simulation Specialists Ltd.

  Logica (UK) Ltd.

  Logistyx Ltd.

  Loughborough University

  MA-COM Ltd.

  Macdonald Dettwiler Ltd.

  Magec Aviation Ltd.

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Mantron Displays Ltd.

  Marconi Instruments Ltd.

  Marconi Underwater Systems Ltd.

  Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  Matra Marconi Ltd.

  Mawdsley's Ltd.

  MCM Research Ltd.

  Meteorological Office

  Microtouch Systems Ltd.

  Ministry of Defence

  Modus International Ltd.

  Morse Computers Ltd.

  National Aeronautical Laboratory

  Navstar Navigation Systems

  Norcontrol Ltd.

  Novotel Communications Ltd.

  Penny and Giles Data Recorders Ltd.

  PHS Smith

  Plessey Radar Ltd.

  Plessey Roke Manor

  Primagraphics Ltd.

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  Quadrant Connectors Ltd.

  R. C. Bowes

  R M Consultants Ltd.

  Racal Radar Defence Ltd.

  Real Time Consultants Ltd.

  Rediffusion Simulation Ltd.

  Rex Thomson and Partners Ltd.

  RMCS Cranfield Ltd.

  Robert Dick and Son Ltd.

  Royal College of Art

  SNEC

  Satellite Navigation Systems

  SD—Scicon UK Ltd.

  Serco Ltd.

  SES Incorporated

  Siemens Plessey

  Silicon Valley Consultants Ltd.

  SITA

  Smith Associates Ltd.

  Societe Nouvelle D'equipment

  STC Navigation Systems

  Susar Ltd.

  Sygnus Data Communications Ltd.

  TA Consultancy Services

  Technische Universitat Braunschweig

  Technology PLC

  Thames Valley Systems Ltd.

  Thomson-CSF

  Thorley Software

  Trevor Brewer Associates

  Trimble Navigation

  University College London

  University of Leeds

  University of Leicester

  University of Southampton

  University of Surrey

  Vega Space Systems Ltd.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to include accidents to Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive) and Defence
  895
  Research Agency aircraft in the tables of military aircraft accidents published in "UK Defence Statistics"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have no such plans.

  Departmental Offices (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Hanley
  Care is taken to ensure that special advisers do not have access to the kind of information likely to create suspicion of impropriety. They are not involved in evaluating tenders or letting contracts.

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

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend's special adviser is Crispin Blunt. His duties vary.

  Foreign Military Personnel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what foreign military personnel are at present on training programmes with British military forces in the United Kingdom; and if he will list each country, the numbers of personnel involved and the courses they are taking.

  Mr. Hanley
  At the end of the week 5 to 11 December 1993, there were 592 foreign students, attending 102 different developmental and technical training courses at British military establishments, from the following countries:

  Abu Dhabi

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Canada

  Chile

  Denmark

  Dubai

  Egypt

  Fiji

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  896

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Malawi

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  Norway

  New Zealand

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Paraguay

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  St. Vincent

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  United States of America

  Yemen

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  The details of training provided for overseas military personnel are not normally disclosed as they are confidental between Governments.

  FH70 (Ammunition)
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 606, what were the outline terms of the trinational memorandum of understanding with Germany and Italy governing the procurement of 155 mm ammunition for the FH70 gun; why primers manufactured in Germany were procured; what proportion of the ammunition originally procured under the terms of this MOU remains in service; whether ammunition for the AS90 is to be procured under the terms of the MOU; and when he now expects to place orders in the United Kingdom for further 155 mm ammunition.

  Mr. Aitken
  The trinational MOU with Germany and Italy for FH70, which was signed in 1970, covers the development, evaluation and production of a towed 155 mm howitzer and its ammunition—comprising the L15 HE shell, charges and primers. The MOU allocates work between the three Governments, giving responsibility for
  897
  production of primers to Germany. In fact, there is no alternative source of supply for these primers. Stocks of the same 155 mm ammunition were also purchased for use with the M109 gun and there is no differentiation in the current holdings of 155 mm ammunition between that originally procured for the FH70 and M109 guns. Therefore, it is not possible to state how much of the ammunition purchased for FH70 under the terms of the MOU remains in service. There have been no purchases of this 155 mm ammunition for several years. Ammunition for the AS90 howitzer will not be procured under the terms of this MOU, but under our normal procedures by competitive tender. Current purchases of 155 mm ammunition are limited to relatively small amounts for training; no major order for 155 mm ammunition is imminent. The country of manufacture of this ammunition will be determined by whichever company wins the contract to provide it.

  Combat-ready Aircrew
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the requirement for all combat-ready RAF strike/attack/reconnaissance fast jet aircrew to be current in operational low flying down to 100 ft was introduced; and if this requirement applies to(a) Buccaneer crews, (b) Canberra reconnaissance crews, (c) instructors on the Haw aircraft and (d) instructors in the Tornado, Harrier and Jaguar reserve squadrons.

  Mr. Hanley
  The requirement for all combat-ready RAF strike/attack/reconnaissance fast jet aircrew to be current in operational low flying came into effect on 1 May 1993 for aircrew of No. 1 Group RAF Strike Command and on 1 November 1993 for aircrew of No. 2 Group. Canberra reconnaissance crews, instructors on Hawk aircraft and instructors on Tornado, Harrier and Jaguar reserve squadrons are not required to be current in operational low flying. In keeping with their maritime role, however, Buccaneer crews are required to be current in operational low flying over the sea.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of authorised operational low-flying movements, broken down by tactical training areas and by aircraft type,(a) in each year since 1979 and (b) in each month between January 1982 and June 1982.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Lance Corporal Gary Fryer
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now provide a copy of the police report and inquest reports on the death of Lance Corporal Gary Fryer No. 24792566 to his parents.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am not yet able to give the next of kin a summary of the report by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police. This is because the inquest cannot be held until an appeal by the driver responsible for the accident against the sentence on him from a German court has been completed. That appeal has yet to be heard.898
  Once the inquest has been held, the next of kin of Lance Corporal Fryer will be sent a copy of the summary which would also cover the German police road traffic report.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much plutonium has been used in United Kingdom nuclear warhead production since 1953; and what is the current total inventory of weapons plutonium at nuclear sites in the United Kingdom and overseas territories.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the interests of national security, this information cannot be made public, the harm test, as set out in paragraph 3.7 of the White Paper on open government —Cm 2290—being applicable.

  Hercules
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what stage the C130K Hercules fleet is at in its life cycle.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft is now some 26-years-old, having entered service in 1967. At purchase, it was foreseen that the fleet would have a life of only 13 years. However, following major wing modifications in the 1970s, and ongoing fatigue monitoring, the majority of the fleet is expected to last until 2007.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what distinguishes the C130K Hercules, or similar military airlifter, from its civil counterparts in terms of operational capability and on-board equipment.

  Mr. Hanley
  The basic aircraft structure, systems and engines for both the civil and military variants of the Hercules transport aircraft are likely to be the same. Civil aircraft are not generally equipped for tactical tasks such as air dropping of troops, equipment or supplies, may not be capable of operating onto unprepared strips and are not equipped with the defensive aids necessary for operating in hostile airspace.

  Aircraft (Hazardous Loads)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions apply to the carriage of live ordnance and other hazardous payloads on aircraft leased by the Ministry of Defence from civil contractors.

  Mr. Hanley
  The carriage of dangerous air cargo—DAC—by air is governed by the United Nations through the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO—which issues technical instructions which regulate how cargoes should be packed and the restrictions to be applied with regard to their safe transport. With regard to the live ordnance and hazardous items of a similar nature, the ICAO regulations preclude their carriage on civil aircraft and these restrictions would be applied to any civil aircraft leased by the MOD.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government have purchased any Trident missiles to replace those used by the United States for testing.
  899
  Mr. Hanley
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Polaris and (b) Trident submarines are assumed to be operational at any one time in calculating the level of operational explosive firepower of Britain's nuclear forces and their subsequent reduction.

  Mr. Hanley
  The anticipated reduction of more than 25 per cent. in the explosive power of the United Kingdom's operational nuclear inventory when Trident is fully in service compared with 1990 is based on the overall number of United Kingdom nuclear weapons—excluding any awaiting final breakdown—irrespective of how many may be deployed at any one time on submarines.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the transfer of Britain's sub-strategic nuclear capability to the Trident fleet requires any modification to the Trident missile purchase arrangements.

  Mr. Hanley
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the funds allocated for the purchase of Trident missiles is spent on administration surcharges.

  Mr. Hanley
  Three per cent.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the total number of Trident missiles being purchased by the United Kingdom are to be used in test firing.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans, about 20 per cent. of the total number of United Kingdom's Trident missiles will be test fired.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 204 nuclear tests, the existence of which was made public by the United States Energy Secretary on 7 December, were jointly conducted with the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  One. I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) on 8 December,Official Report, column 298.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) of 8 December,Official Report, column 298, what was the code name of the nuclear test carried out at the Nevada test site on 25 September 1964; and with which United States laboratory this test was carried out.

  Mr. Hanley
  The test, codenamed Courser, was carried out in conjunction with the Los Alamos national laboratory.

  WE177 Bombs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the reduction in nuclear explosive firepower calculated by his Department assumes the stockpile of WE177 bombs to be deployed at(a) their highest yield, (b) their lowest yield or (c) a mixture of yields.
  900
  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to discuss details of nuclear weapon design, but the anticipated reduction of more than 25 per cent. in the explosive power of the United Kingdom's operational nuclear inventory when Trident is fully in service compared with 1990 is based on the full yield of all the weapons in the United Kingdom's stockpile.

  MOD Dwellings
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings are currently owned by the MOD; how many have been sold since 1979; and what plans he has for further disposals.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Ministry in Plymouth are currently unoccupied.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 30 September 1993 the MOD owned 252 vacant dwellings in Plymouth, of which 245 were service married quarters and seven were MOD civilian houses. Of these properties, 107 were undergoing major maintenance work or modernisation and 63 were already allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly. In addition, some 47 vacant service married quarters were in the process of being sold.

  Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size and cost of the United Kingdom contribution to the rapid deployment force.

  Mr. Hanley
  In addition to the headquarters framwork, the United Kingdom is assigning to the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps—ARRC—the 1st United Kingdom Armoured Division, 3rd (UK) Division, and combat service support for both these divisions. The United Kingdom is also assigning 24 Airmobile Brigade to the Multinational Division (Central)—MND(C)—together with a contribution to the divisional HQ and communications elements and corps troops.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the costs of the United Kingdom contribution.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of press releases issued by the Ministry of Defence before 1985 are not available. Since that year, the number of press releases issued centrally by the MOD have been as follows:

  Number

  1985

  207

  1986

  190

  1987

  119

  1988

  149

  1989

  165

  1990

  263

  1991

  259

  1992

  307

  1993

  1181

  1to 14 December

  901
  Command and district offices and bases of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force are encouraged to issue press releases to their local media. Full records of these are not maintained.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press officers his Department has employed in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Hanley
  Reliable manning figures are not available for the period prior to 1987 and estimates based on complements are provided for these earlier years. On this basis, the numbers employed in the Ministry of Defence Press Office have been:

  Number

  1983–85

  27

  1985–87

  23

  1987–92

  20

  1992

  13

  1993

  16

  Military Airfields
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the military airfields in respect of which payments have been made by his Department equivalent to injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Acts.

  Mr. Hanley
  Compensation has been paid at the following military airfields:

  RAF Conningsby

  RAF Cottesmore

  RAF Honington

  RAF Lakenheath

  RAF Leeming

  RAF Mildenhall

  RAF Marham

  RAF Upper Heyford

  RAF Wattisham

  RNAS Yeovilton

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is regarding the use of executive search consultants in making appointments to public bodies; and if he will(a) list the appointments where such consultants have been used and (b) list the cost in each case since April 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  In respect of MOD non-departmental public bodies, executive search consultants will be used when appropriate. At present, there are no appointments that have been made where such consultants have been used.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the appointments made to public bodies by his Department since April 1992 have been advertised.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been four appointments made to MOD NDPBs since April 1992: two trustees to the RAF museum and a chairman and one member to the Review Board for Government Contracts.

  None of the above posts was advertised.

  Contract Specifications
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report,column 424, how he distinguishes between reliability and maintainability requirements forming an essential and non-essential element of a contract specification.

  Mr. Hanley
  The word "essential" was used to indicate the tauter approach which is now used in contracting for reliability and maintainability. In the past, reliability and maintainability were often specified as targets. Today's contracts are not fulfilled until the specified levels of reliability and maintainability are achieved.

  Defence Research Agency
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a de-classifiied copy of the management parameters in the customer satisfaction survey used by the Defence Research Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 December 1993:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question about the DRA's customer satisfaction survey.
  In answer to the first part of your question the management parameters of the survey are not classified and are shown in the annex. The results of the survey are however commercially confidential.
  You also asked for a statement about the survey. As part of the DRA's Framework Document we are required to agree annual performance targets with the Secretary of State and one of these concerns quality of service. One element of this is the customer satisfaction survey.
  The survey has three related uses. Firstly is demonstrates to my Secretary of State that the DRA is offering a quality service and that this is improving. The target for this year is a 2 per cent. increase in overall satisfaction since the previous survey. Secondly, it helps to develop the strategic relationship we are trying to forge with industry where we are both a competitor and partner. Thirdly, and very importantly, it helps the DRA's business sectors to become more effective by knowing their customers' perception of their strengths and weaknesses.
  The survey has been carried out for the last three years and last year was extended to 18 key industrial as well as about 50 MOD customers. This year's survey is now under way but the results will not be known until about the end of January when they will be incorporated into the DRA's Business Plan.

  ANNEX

  Management parameters for customer satisfaction survey Overall customer satisfaction
  An overall impression of the top-level performance of the technical work of a particular DRA business sector (BS).

  Responsiveness
  The ability of the BS to provide the customer's needs in the required timescale.

  Quality
  The progress towards formal quality accreditation and the impact on the customer's product.

  Project management
  The BS's management of the research task as a discreet project: monitoring and reporting performance against milestones, deployment of staff and resources and use of management information systems.
  903
  Understanding requirements
  The ability to analyse and interpret the customer's needs to their satisfaction.

  Technology
  The level of technology development or innovation used to meet the customer's expectation.

  Facilities
  The customer's view on the use, relevance and cost of using DRA facilities.

  Staff reputation
  The customer's perception of the scientific and management qualifications and reputation of the BS staff undertaking their work.

  RAF Support Command
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are used by the RAF Support Command maintenance group to assess efficiency savings.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF Support Command maintenance group efficiency programme is based on the detailed reporting of efficiency performance against annual targets set by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of RAF Support Command, the agency's owner. Efficiency savings from all the stations and units within the maintenance group are rigorously pursued, and reported upon at mid-year and end-of-year financial reporting points. In addition, the maintenance group financial staff have pursued the efficiency savings generated by the group on behalf of other areas within the Ministry of Defence. Significant efficiency savings have also been programmed into each of the annual costing exercises.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the prototype financial and management accounting systems installed by RAF Support command maintenance group at RAF St. Athan and at its headquarters.

  Mr. Hanley
  The financial and management accounting system installed by the maintenance group at RAF St. Athan and the headquarters to meet Her Majesty's Treasury's draft accounts direction is a commercial package known as FW-Agresso. It is marketed by Fraser-Williams (East Midlands) Ltd.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pursuit of a total quality approach to management within RAF Support Command maintenance group.

  Mr. Hanley
  To date four stations have adopted the total quality approach within the RAF support maintenance group.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide detailed descriptions of all of the formal quality systems that have been installed by RAF Support Command maintenance group since its formation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF Support Command maintenance group adopted assessment and certification against recognised quality systems nine years ago. A succession of standards have been used: defence standard 05-21; the NATO allied quality assurance publications; and in recent times the International Standards Organisation 9000 series.

  Royal Army Engineer Regiment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the length and number of emergency tours completed by each Royal Army Engineer regiment in each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Engineers have deployed in regimental strength on four occasions since 1988:

  To the Gulf (approximately August 1990-March 1991)

  (1) 21 Engineer Regiment with 7 Armoured Brigade

  (2) 23 Engineer Regiment with 4 Armoured Brigade

  (3) 32 Armoured Engineer Regiment with 1 Armoured Division

  To former Republic of Yugoslavia (November 1992-May 1993) (1) 35 Engineer Regiment with 1 Cheshire.

  Services (Christmas Celebrations)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to ensure that service personnel deployed in(a) Bosnia and (b) Northern Ireland can properly celebrate Christmas and communicate with their families over the Christmas period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  An important part of the welfare support for service personnel on unaccompanied tours has always been the provision of facilities to allow them to communicate with their families and friends. This is particularly important at Christmas. For troops in Bosnia, free aerogrammes are already available and the arrangements for subsidised telephone calls will be enhanced over the Christmas period. In Northern Ireland, official welfare telephones are provided and personnel receive reimbursement towards the cost of telephone calls to families. In addition, concessionary telephone cards are available for purchase to allow more frequent contact. British forces deployed in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland will continue their operational duties over the Christmas period. Arrangements are nevertheless in hand for traditional regimental Christmas celebrations. Church services will be held in both Bosnia and Northern Ireland.

  Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF units are currently equipped with helicopters capable of operating in all-weather conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  All helicopters are limited in some respects by weather conditions. RAF Chinook and Sea King helicopters have a full capability to operate under instrument flight rules. Furthermore, RAF search and rescue Sea Kings have a capability to operate in reduced visibility.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace the helicopters used by the Royal Marines Brigade air squadron; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Lynx helicopter armed with TOW missiles will provide both the Army and the Royal Marines with effective anti-armour capability for some time to come. We plan to replace Lynx/TOW with a modern attack helicopter system by the end of the decade, and this will offer a substantial increase in capability. We have yet to
  905
  decide on total numbers and deployment. The Royal Marines also currently operate Gazelle helicopters in the communications and battlefield support role. Options for the replacement of these latter aircraft are under consideration.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of his plans to introduce the Merlin helicopter into service, including a timetable setting out the numbers to be introduced in each year for the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We currently have 44 EH101 Merlin ASW helicopters on order. The first of these is expected to be delivered to the Royal Navy in 1996. Initial aircraft will be allocated to operational proving trials. It is planned that the first operational aircraft will be deployed around the turn of the century.

  All-weather Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Army units are currently equipped with helicopters capable of operating in all-weather conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  All helicopters are limited in some respects by weather conditions. All Army air corps helicopters can operate in the majority of conditions likely to be encountered in their primary deployment areas. There are, however, limitations in their capability in cold weather and in poor visibility.

  10 Squadron
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual running cost of 10 Squadron.

  Mr. Hanley
  The average annual operating cost—at 1993–94 outturn prices—of 10 Squadron is approximately £43 million. This includes personnel, fuel, maintenance and equipment support costs but excludes depreciation, interest on capital, station and administration costs.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional revenue has been generated by the activities of 10 Squadron; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  10 Squadron was established to provide strategic airlift in support of British defence and foreign policy objectives. It retains an immediate capacity to respond instantly to crises and war situations. In peacetime, it is used to support defence activities across a wide spectrum by providing air transport for operational, administrative and exercise purposes.

  It does not generate revenue per se, but when non-defence specific tasks are undertaken on behalf of other Government Departments, the United Nations, or NATO, these are carried out on a repayment basis. The total value of the repayment tasks undertaken on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in supporting United Nations operations during the 12 months to October 1993, was in the order of £2 million.

  Departmental Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give the size, name and location by county, in Wales of land,(a) owned and (b) leased by his Department which he intends to dispose of;
  906
  (2) if he will list by region in Scotland the size, location and name of all land (a) owned and (b) leased by his Department which he intends to dispose of;

  (3) if he will give the size, location and name by county, in England of land (a) owned or (b) leased by his Department which he intends to dispose of.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the area, in hectares, in each county of England of land(a) owned or (b) leased by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Land owned—freehold—and leasedleasehold—including foreshore by the Ministry of Defence in each of the counties of England is set out in the tables:

  (a) Freehold Landholdings

  Hectares

  Avon

  165

  Bedfordshire

  1,315

  Berkshire

  1,911

  Buckinghamshire

  648

  Cambridgeshire

  2,793

  Cheshire

  407

  Cleveland

  48

  Cornwall

  2,724

  Cumbria

  8,025

  Derbyshire

  112

  Devon

  2,991

  Dorset

  4,928

  Durham

  168

  East Sussex

  256

  Essex

  15,927

  Gloucestershire

  1,487

  Greater London

  1,226

  Greater Manchester

  449

  Hampshire

  12,714

  Hereford and Worcester

  840

  Hertfordshire

  92

  Humberside

  1,047

  Isle of Wight

  5

  Kent

  5,528

  Lancashire

  627

  Leicestershire

  1,047

  Lincolnshire

  6,027

  Merseyside

  198

  Norfolk

  10,874

  North Yorkshire

  12,860

  Northamptonshire

  874

  Northumberland

  23,092

  Nottinghamshire

  848

  Oxfordshire

  3,630

  Shropshire

  1,795

  Somerset

  807

  South Yorkshire

  405

  Staffordshire

  1,177

  Suffolk

  3,438

  Surrey

  4,674

  Tyne and Wear

  10

  Warwickshire

  1,631

  West Midlands

  33

  West Sussex

  736

  West Yorkshire

  6

  Wiltshire

  41,336

  TOTAL

  181,931

  (b) Leasehold Landholdings

  Hectares

  Avon

  26

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Berkshire

  13

  907

  Hectares

  Buckinghamshire

  26

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  41

  Cleveland

  1

  Cornwall

  142

  Cumbria

  3,786

  Derbyshire

  Nil

  Devon

  687

  Dorset

  452

  Durham

  209

  East Sussex

  Nil

  Essex

  595

  Gloucestershire

  Nil

  Greater London

  32

  Greater Manchester

  2

  Hampshire

  21

  Hereford and Worcester

  23

  Hertfordshire

  6

  Humberside

  Nil

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Kent

  215

  Lancashire

  6

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire

  3,915

  Merseyside

  Nil

  Norfolk

  294

  North Yorkshire

  680

  Northamptonshire

  14

  Northumberland

  28

  Nottinghamshire

  648

  Oxfordshire

  24

  Shropshire

  1

  Somerset

  4

  South Yorkshire

  Nil

  Staffordshire

  361

  Suffolk

  19

  Surrey

  268

  Tyne and Wear

  4

  Warwickshire

  Nil

  West Midlands

  Nil

  West Sussex

  Nil

  West Yorkshire

  Nil

  Wiltshire

  52

  TOTAL

  12,606

  Note:
  Figures are at 1 April 1993—the latest date for which records are available—and relate to freehold and leasehold landholdings, including foreshore, for which deeds or lease agreements were held. Acquisitions or disposals which may have been completed but where deeds had not been transferred, or agreements not formally signed or
  determined by 1 April 1993 are not included.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the area in hectares in each region of Scotland of land(a) owned and (b) leased by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Land owned—freehold—and leasedleasehold—including foreshore by the Ministry of Defence in each of the regions of Scotland is set out in the table:

  (a)Freehold landholdings Hectares

  (b)Leasehold landholdings Hectares

  Borders

  Nil

  1

  Central

  78

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,746

  5

  Fife

  1,322

  7

  Grampian

  2,076

  87

  Highland

  2,786

  2,278

  Lothian

  1,155

  Nil

  Strathclyde

  5,581

  144

  908

  (a)Freehold landholdings Hectares

  (b)Leasehold landholdings Hectares

  Tayside

  1,444

  9

  Orkney Isles

  4

  Nil

  Shetland Isles

  34

  13

  Western Isles

  1,317

  25

  Total

  20,543

  2,571

  Figures are at 1 April 1993—the latest date for which records are available—and relate to freehold and leasehold landholdings, including foreshore, for which deeds or lease agreements were held. Acquisitions or disposals which may have been completed but where deeds had not been transferred, or agreements not formally signed or determined by 1 April 1993 are not included.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the area in hectares of land in each county in Wales(a) owned and (b) leased by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Land owned—freehold—and leased—leasehold—including foreshore by the Ministry of Defence in each of the counties of Wales is set out in the tables:

  Hectares

  Freehold landholdings

  Leasehold landholdings

  Clwyd

  322

  61

  Dyfed

  6,716

  Nil

  Gwent

  666

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  8

  Nil

  Powys

  12,059

  Nil

  South Glamorgan

  400

  2

  West Glamorgan

  1

  Nil

  Total

  20,968

  69

  Figures are at 1 April 1993—the latest date for which records are available—and relate to freehold and leasehold landholdings, including foreshore for which deeds or lease agreements were held. Acquisitions or disposals which may have been completed but where deeds had not been transferred, or agreements not formally signed or determined by 1 April 1993 are not included.

  Ferranti International
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 176, how many contracts he currently has with Ferranti International.

  Mr. Hanley
  Our records show about 500 current contracts with Ferranti International. On many of these, however, work is complete and they remain open only pending final settlement.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 177, what assessment he has made of the impact of the immediate termination of all contracts with Ferranti International on the operational effectiveness of (a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The receivers of Ferranti International are continuing to trade, and my Department is co-operating
  909
  with them to minimise any disruption to MOD contracts. The question of the immediate termination of all contracts does not arise in the present circumstances.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 177, what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts relating to the future of Ferranti International.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of outstanding commitments to Ferranti.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has a large number of contracts with Ferranti International, and defence procurement officials have been discussing with the receivers how the outstanding business can be completed with the minimum of disruption.

  Amphibious Operations (Support Vessels)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current vessels available for supporting amphibious operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government are satisfied that the Royal Navy is fully capable of providing the support which amphibious operations currently require. In recognition of the importance of this area of operations in the current strategic environment however, the Government are currently making a sizeable investment in our capability in this field: the contract for the design and construction of a helicopter carrier was awarded on 11 May; project definition studies for the replacement of the assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid are now nearing completion; and the invitation to tender for the refurbishment of the landing ship logistic Sir Bedivere was issued on 26 November 1993.

  Bosnia (Logistical Support)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra expenditure has been caused by the deployment of Warrior armoured vehicles in Bosnia on(a) spare parts and (b) other logistical support for these vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Agencies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are used by(a) the Defence Analytical Services Agency, (b) the Defence Operational Analysis Centre and (c) the Directorate General of Defence Accounts to assess efficiency.
  910
  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked each of the chief executives to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from P. Altobell to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 December 1993:
  Minister of State (DP) has asked me to reply to your Question about the measures used to assess efficiency in my Agency.
  In DASA we operate a task costing system, and as a result we are able to estimate the cost of producing each of our outputs. This information, together with the replies to our Customer Satisfaction Survey, and the monitoring of established Service Level Agreements, enables changes in efficiency to be assessed.

  Letter from D. Leadbeater to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 December 1993:
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has asked me to reply to your Question about the measures used to assess efficiency in my Agency.
  The Secretary of State has set 7 key Performance Targets for my Agency in 1993–94; these have been published in Hansard. One of these targets specifically calls for an increase in efficiency by 2 per cent. of the cash budget.
  The Agency maintains tight control of operating costs through a full cost accounting system, hence achieving full visibility of the cost of outputs covering studies, trials, advice and models.
  In order to meet the 2 per cent. target, the Agency has a set of efficiency measures which are monitored by the Department and are subject to audit.

  Letter from K. M. Miller to Dr. David Clark, dated 15 December 1993:
  Minister of State (DP) has asked me to reply to your question about measuring efficiency in my Agency.
  My key performance targets for 1993/94 are published in Hansard and include one specifically relating to efficiency. In order to assess whether this target has been met we identify individual measures which we have taken to improve efficiency and we place a value on them by comparing output achieved with the cost of resources utilised, before and after each measure is introduced.
  Additionally, my Agency routinely maintains records showing the total outputs of the Agency, eg number of bills processed, number of pay accounts managed, etc, and again by relating these to the inpout of resources used in achieving these outputs, they reflect, over a period of time, our efficiency gains.
  We also carry out surveys of our customers to monitor our performance in meeting their needs.
  Finally, parts of my Agency are seeking BS5750 accreditation or have adopted Total Quality approaches to their work.
  This reply has been discussed with, and agreed by, Mr. Mike Dymond, the Chief Executive. I am signing it on his behalf as he is out of the office today.

  Army Costs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 358, if the figures for the annual running costs of Army units include the costs of replacing their equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  No.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 358, if he will give details of all the changes made to the basis used for costing Army units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures provided in my answer of 9 December 1993,Official Report, column 358, represent the best available estimate of the annual operating costs for the

  911
  units in question. Until 1991, costs of units were derived from a defence-wide cost-attribution system. This system was largely reliant on judgments on the attributions of costs which were refined over time. It would not be possible to give a more detailed explanation of the differences between current cost estimates and those produced prior to 1991 without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Submarines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Royal Navy's conventional submarine fleet.

  Mr. Hanley
  The only remaining conventionally powered submarines in service with the Royal Navy are the four vessels of the Upholder class. This year's Statement on the Defence Estimates announced our decision to withdraw these submarines from service by 1995. We are currently examining options for their sale, lease or storage, bearing in mind the investment which they represent.

  Otterburn Training Area
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the full terms of reference of the environmental impact assessment that is being prepared for the development plan for Otterburn training area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The study, the terms of which have been agreed with the Northumberland national park authority, is not a part of the formal planning process, but will provide a blueprint for future developments. Until firm proposals are available, both parties have agreed that public comment would be premature.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the name of the firm of independent planning and environmental consultants that is preparing the environmental impact assessment for Otterburn training area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The firm of independent planning and environmental consultants that is preparing the preliminary environmental impact assessment for Otterburn training area is RPS Clouston which is based at Steventon, Abingdon, near Oxford.

  Army Requirements
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his German and Canadian counterparts relating to future training requirements for the British Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  British Army field training currently takes place at Canadian training areas at the British army training unit, Suffield—BATU——and the British army support unit, Wainwright—BATUW. United Kingdom use of these training areas is covered by a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian MOD and is not due to expire until 2006.

  Regular official contact with the Canadian defence authorities makes them well aware of our continuing commitment to training at Suffield and Wainwright and our commitment to ensure that all defence activity is undertaken in the most cost-effective manner.
  912
  In Germany, field training exercises are limited to battle group level and below. I understand that the Federal Republic of Germany is considering the establishment of a field training centre in one of the eastern Lander. There are no plans to involve the British Army in this training facility nor are there any plans to increase British training areas in Germany as a whole. German MOD officials are kept informed of our thinking in this area.

  Mechanised Brigade
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a declassified statement of the future training requirements of 19 Mechanised Brigade.

  Mr. Hanley
  19 Mechanised Brigade will conduct its future training in field training exerciseFTX—and command field exercise—CFX-modes on Salisbury plain training area—SPTA—with low-level individual and collective training carried out on local training areas.

  FTX aims to practice all elements of a formation, unit and sub-unit under as realistic conditions as possible and CFX training is a mode of exercising whereby command, control and communication elements deploy, but only selected formations do so in full strength. It combines the aims of FTX with command post exercise—CPX—whereby enemy and/or friendly forces are generated, displayed and moved by electronic or other means on computers, simulators or other training devices. The purpose of the CPX is to practice headquarters staffs at all levels in a realistic way which does not involve manoeuvre elements.

  In addition, 19 Mechanised Brigade will also conduct its armoured/mechanised battle group training at the British Army training unit, Suffield—Canada.

  Training Equipment, Catterick
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the installation of new types of computerised training equipment at Catterick; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The only training facilities that use computerised training equipment are the brigade and battle group trainer—north—located at HQ Catterick and the unit fire control trainer and small arms trainer which are used for in-barracks training at unit level. HQ 19 Mechanised Brigade, however, may be involved in computer assisted exercises where computers simulate the operational environment and provide event resolution, when the higher formation trainer—HFT—comes into service in 1994. HFT is a computer based trainer to be used for "wargaming" at up to corps level.

  Royal Yacht
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the royal yacht; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The royal yacht underwent a refit in Portsmouth in 1991 to enable her to remain safe, seaworthy and up-to-date for the next few years. Nevertheless, she is an old ship, commissioned in 1954, and in view of her age, her future is currently under review. A wide range of options are being considered.

  Type 23 Frigate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the type 23 frigate procurement programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We currently plan to issue invitations to tender for a further batch of type 23 frigates during the course of next year and to place an order in 1995.

  Departmental Objectives
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 424, if he will publish details of the quantitative data he uses in the assessment of the achievement of departmental standing objectives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Unclassified data related to the achievement of departmental standing objectives are published in the departmental report—Cm 2201. Other relevant material is published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates—Cm 2270. Copies of both are in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 424, if he will place in the Library declassified copies of all the reports of top and higher level budget holders which contain their judgments on the performance against departmental standing objectives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. Although reports by top and higher-level budget holders are sources for MOD headquarters analysis, they cannot give a full account of performance against departmental standing objectives. Piecemeal publication could give an unbalanced and misleading impression. Preparing declassified versions would also divert staff effort and add cost. An overview of performance against departmental standing objectives is published in the departmental report—Cm 2201.

  Warrior Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what operational impact the deployment of Warrior armoured vehicles in Bosnia has had on those Warrior armoured vehicles still deployed in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The deployment of a Warrior armoured infantry battalion to the former Yugoslavia has had little operational impact on the rest of the Warrior fleet remaining in Germany. For a time there was a slight shortage of some items for which longer notice is needed. The procurement and repair strategy has been adjusted to ensure the Warrior fleet as a whole is fully supported.

  Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what operational impact the deployment of armoured reconnaissance vehicles in Bosnia has had on those armoured reconnaissance vehicles still deployed in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been no operational impact on those armoured reconnaissance vehicles still deployed in Germany as there was a surplus of this type of vehicle due to the drawdown.

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current operational status of(a) HMS Fearless and (b) HMS Intrepid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  HMS Fearless is fully operational, having completed a period of programmed maintenance earlier this year. HMS Intrepid is currently held in a state of extended readiness at Portsmouth. As such she has a reduced ship's crew, and some systems have been placed in preservation. She remains in commission, however, and could be brought forward for operations if an emergency arose.

  RAF Stations
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distance between(a) RAF Valley and RAF St. Athan, (b) RAF St. Athan and Pembrey range, (c) Pembrey range and RAF Valley, (d) RAF Chivenor and RAF St. Athan, (e) RAF Chivenor and Pembrey range, (f) RAF Brawdy and RAF St. Athan and (g) RAF Brawdy and Pembrey range.

  Mr. Hanley
  The distances are as follows:

  a. RAF Valley and RAF St. Athan: 116 nautical miles

  b. RAF St. Athan and Pembrey range: 38 nautical miles

  c. Pembrey Range and RAF Valley: 91 nautical miles

  d. RAF Chivenor and RAF St. Athan: 33 nautical miles

  e. RAF Chivenor and Pembrey Range: 38 nautical miles

  f. RAF Brawdy and RAF St. Athan: 68 nautical miles

  g. RAF Brawdy and Pembrey Range: 30 nautical miles

  Note: 1 nautical mile=1.15078 statute miles=1.8520 km.

  RAF St. Mawgan
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which search and rescue base covers RAF St. Mawgan military operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  Search and Rescue—SAR—cover for military aircraft operation in the immediate vicinity of RAF St. Mawgan is provided by the SAR bases at RAF Chivenor and RNAS Culdrose. Aircraft conducting military operations out of RAF St. Mawgan in other areas of the United Kingdom, and requiring SAR support, would be allocated resources by the rescue and co-ordination centres, depending upon the position of the aircraft, whether conditions and SAR resources available.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the annual cost of support services, including security, catering, sewage disposal and emergency fire services at RAF Chivenor from 1 October 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the proposals that I announced in the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 7 December,Official Report, column 177, flying training would cease at RAF Chivenor from 1 October 1994 and by 1995 Chivenor would operate on a care and maintenance basis. The annual cost of support services for 1 October 1994 would be some £937,000 per annum.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on new and existing buildings and infrastructure at(a) RAF Chivenor and (b) RAF Valley in each of the last five years.
  915
  Mr. Hanley
  Available historical records show that the amounts spent on new and and existing buildings and infrastructure are as follows:

  £

  (a) RAF Chivenor (last two years only):

  1992–93

  5,972,000

  1993–94 (to date)

  3,038,000

  (b) RAF Valley (last three years):

  1991–92

  4,197,000

  1992–93

  8,374,000

  1993–94 (to date)

  3,004,000

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure by his Department on administration in 1992–93; what is the estimated outturn for expenditure by his Department on administration for 1993–94 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in, 1992–93 prices; and what is his estimate for expenditure on administration by his Department for 1994–95 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Hanley
  The final outturn for the running costs of the Ministry of Defence in 1992–93 was £6,251,000. The running cost limit for 1993–94 is £5,475,000. An estimated outturn will be published in spring 1994 in the departmental report and the unified budget supplement. The Department's planned running costs expenditure in 1994–95 is £5,410,000. In 1992–93 prices, the figures shown for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are £5,302,000 and £5,038,000 respectively.

  World War II
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are being made to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II in 1995.
  916
  Mr. Rifkind
  I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government intend to commemorate the events associated with the ending of the second world war; to recognise the sacrifices of so many who were involved; to give thanks for the beginning of peace; and to take forward the spirit of reconciliation. There will be two church services in London. One will be in St. Paul's cathedral; the venue for the other has yet to be decided. One will be on Sunday 7 May, the other in mid-August. Each will be followed by a parade. The Government also envisage that commemorations in London will be reflected in events around the nation and intend to consult widely, especially with veterans' associations and voluntary organisations, on the detailed planning.

  In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced today, for 1995 only and in association with these commemorative events, the early May bank holiday will be on Monday 8 May, which in Scotland will be an additional day's bank holiday.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the decision to extend ethnic monitoring to service personnel will be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The implementation of in-service ethnic monitoring will begin this week with a survey of the ethnic origins of regular armed forces' personnel, excluding the brigade of Gurkhas. Ethnic origin questionnaires will be sent first to RAF personnel, and then to Navy and Army personnel in the new year. Information on the survey is currently being disseminated throughout the armed forces. To reinforce the services' policy of equal opportunities for personnel of all racial groups, a code of practice on race relations in the armed forces has been published and is also being disseminated throughout the services. A copy of the code of practice has been placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

London Underground: Funding
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now withdraw the cuts made in the last two years to the finance available to London Underground for maintenance and improvement.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government's funding plans for London Transport were announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget on 30th November. These plans are aimed to protect investment in London Transport's existing business, and mean that London Underground should be able to invest more over the next three years than at any time in the 1970s and 1980s.
Lord Jay: My Lords, do the Government recognise that after the past few years in which, largely as a result of the underfunding and undermanning of London Transport's maintenance services, there has already been a fatal accident at King's Cross, another serious accident which might well have been fatal three weeks ago on the Central Line and I believe that another was reported today? If the Government persist in underfunding and there is another serious accident, will they not bear a very heavy responsibility?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the accident today to which the noble Lord alludes was a signal failure on the Central Line. That is expected to be corrected by tonight. I can tell the noble Lord (as I am sure he has read in previous issues of Hansard in the past few weeks) that the investment which we are now planning for London Underground is more than at any time since the 1970s and 1980s. In real terms it has considerably increased from previous investment and there will be something like £3 billion invested over the next three years.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that last week his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked a similar Question and that in answer to it he was advised that an urgent inquiry into the recent failure due to the electrical circuit was being undertaken by London Underground and that the Government would take serious note of the results of that inquiry? If it should demonstrate that additional expenditure is required to avoid incidents of this sort in future, will the Government be prepared to respond?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I read with interest the Question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I also remember well the Question
1452
which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked just before that. Therefore, we have covered this territory well. We must see what the report brings forth.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware, despite what the noble Earl said about what happened this morning, that 20,000 passengers were held up for nearly three hours in the early rush hour in the East End of London because of yet another signal failure, which is becoming almost a weekly occurrence? Is the Minister further aware that London Transport officials have said that that will be a very frequent cause of failure unless the Government increase their funding?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would have read was my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of about 10 days ago. I then said that 50 per cent. of the signal faults were on the Central Line, which is why that line had been prioritised and why so much money was being spent to update it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sir Wilfrid Newton, the chairman of London Transport, has said that the sum which the Government are in fact allocating is,
"nowhere near what we need to run a decently modern metro"?
So despite all the complacent talk of the Minister, is it not a fact that the people who are seeking to run the Underground are grossly dissatisfied and recognise that what has been happening over the course of the past few weeks, and even today, represents a serious danger to the safety and well-being of the metropolis?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no complacency whatever in what I said. The proposed investment by London Underground, with taxpayers' money, will be the highest in real terms at any time since the 1970s and 1980s. We appreciate that there is a considerable amount of work to do. Does the noble Lord recall the investment (in 1993–94 prices) of what happened under his government when he was a Minister? In 1977 they cut the investment very nearly in half to a mere £83 million compared with an expected out-turn of £464 million this year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not futile for the Minister to go back to a period more than 14 years ago? Should he not in fact seek to dwell on the present? Is it not a fact that the ideological hatred of public transport on the part of the Thatcherites is still not being rectified by this gang of Majorettes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the noble Lord does not like my answer because his, government may be exposed for the sham which they carried out. If he looks at the figures he will see that there has been a consistent overall improvement in investment in London Underground since the Conservatives came to power.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, to move to a perhaps more mundane and more topical level, does my noble friend have any information to give on the introduction of stored value tickets for London Underground—with which, of course, Sir Wilfrid Newton will be fully familiar as they are used throughout Hong Kong? They

1453
would not only make it much cheaper to issue a ticket but would also greatly reduce the frustration of travellers who all to often find that the ticket machines which are meant to give change have the sign "exact money only". That of itself is a reflection of the sloppy management of London Underground.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend asks a most interesting question, but I believe it is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Jay: My Lords, the Minister gave figures. Has he also read the Government's own excellent Red Book on the Budget which shows, on page 119, that the external finance available to London Transport last year was £880 million and that for the present year it has been reduced to £720 million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed I have read the Red Book. We discussed that with the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, only a week ago.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Arthritics' Society of Woodford made representations that both entrances to the station should remain open? Cannot the Government at least authorise some funds to enable that to be done?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government have authorised funds at record levels. It is up to London Underground management to apportion those funds in the way they think best.

Russia: Relations with NATO
3.8 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the report in the Daily Telegraph of 3rd December relating to the admission to NATO of countries in central Europe where a "British source" is reported as saying that "there are certain areas where the Russians have a particular interest" is accurate and, if so, what the British source is and what areas are indicated by this statement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Daily Telegraph report on 3rd December misrepresented the outcome of the North Atlantic Council meeting of 2nd December. I cannot speculate on the identity of the "British source" quoted. I can confirm to my noble friend that we and our NATO allies recognise the importance of enhancing relations with Russia if the alliance is to be successful in promoting stability and security throughout Europe. We have no wish to resurrect the barriers of the cold war or create new divisions within the European continent. A future NATO summit will decide on the shape of the new relationship.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she confirm that Her Majesty's Government recognise the independence of
1454
the former Soviet republics and the former satellites or does she think that circumstances may compromise that independence and that Russia has a right to take advantage of such circumstances? In view of the recent Russian elections, is my noble friend aware of the deep anxiety and, indeed, fear felt by Poland and all of Russia's neighbours that Russia could expand into their territories again? Are there any plans to give more concrete guarantees of security to the democracies in central Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the full Russian results are not yet in. It looks as if Mr. Zhirinovsky and his fellows will gain no more than a quarter of all the votes once they are fully counted. I think that they are very unlikely to dominate foreign policy. Under the new constitution, we would expect Russian decisions to follow very similarly the lines of those taken before the election, but we are obviously keen that the total independence of the former Soviet satellites should be safeguarded. I do not believe that their future is compromised. In view of the elections, I am sure that the NATO discussions in January, the WEU discussions and the EC association agreements will ensure that that independence is safeguarded.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, despite the noble Baroness's complacency about the results of the Russian elections, does she not remember that Hitler began in much the same way as the leader of that important party which is now winning votes in Russia? Is it not time to tear up the foolish Options for Change which assumed a peace dividend requiring us to reduce our defence forces when, obviously, now is the time to do exactly the opposite?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are in no way complacent about the matter. We are planning to thicken the relationship between NATO and the countries of the former Soviet Union and the former Soviet bloc. In any event, the concept of a partnership for peace that has been initiated is something to be developed. We certainly will not deny the need to keep a very watchful eye on what happens to those former communist countries which now want their independence and a full place in the democracies of Europe.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of the Minister's penultimate answer, which, if I may say so, was very sensible, does she not agree that any move to suck the central and eastern European new democracies into the western military system may tend to hasten rather than prevent the Russian will to suck them back into the Russian military system?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am always concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I seem to agree. That aside, I am quite sure that the now independent nations are determined to stay that way. All NATO and WEU members are determined to help them to stay that way. We should be very careful not to make any false moves which might excite the expectations of extremists in Russia.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister nevertheless agree that the election results have major implications for NATO planning not only in relation to our handling of those central and eastern Europeans but also in our calculations of warning times? Can the Minister say what special studies have been started in NATO leading up to the summit so that there can be a review of the important changes in Russia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we should be cautious about jumping to conclusions. As I said, figures for the Russian parliamentary polls are still coming in. It seems that the reformist groups may yet be the largest bloc in the Duma. I note that the communists have already publicly distanced themselves from Zhirinovsky although they may co-operate to block the reformists' legislation. Nevertheless, we do believe that the foundation fur a democratic society is enshrined in the new constitution. Of course, we are also putting work in hand for the NATO summit in January.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as events unfold and policy develops, will the special and rather vulnerable position of the Baltic states be kept at the forefront of the Government's mind?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in the light of the very worrying Russian election results, the former Warsaw Pact countries of central and eastern Europe will be increasingly anxious about their security position? In view of that, can she tell the House what line the Government will be taking at the NATO summit in January on the proposals for a partnership for peace in order to make those proposals meaningful for the former Warsaw Pact countries in central and eastern Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the partnership for peace places emphasis on practical military co-operation between NATO and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. We believe that the partnership for peace will form the basis of the discussion and we hope for a much more open relationship with those countries than was previously possible. But that is all for the NATO summit in January.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that pending NATO's consideration of the security situation, it may be helpful in reassuring the countries of central Europe if their economic position received greater attention and if the European Union, as it styles itself, stopped interfering with their export of goods—exports on which they rely to make their living?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there should not be any interference. That is why we can rejoice in the outcome of the GATT round. I believe that the resources that the countries of the European Union are devoting to the development of those markets and to commercially oriented countries such as Poland will shortly become clear.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, from the sound of her voice, she ought to be at home in bed with a good, strong whisky toddy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I appreciate the thought and I am most graceful to the product of the Scotch whisky distillers who last night came to the same conclusion and gave me the wherewithal.

Northern Ireland Electricity
3.17 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect electricity consumers in Northern Ireland to be getting value for money following the recent privatisation of the local electricity industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, yes. The structuring and privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity will lead to increased efficiencies and greater competition in the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland, which is the best guarantee of consumers' interests.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer, but is he aware that even in these momentous times in Northern Ireland, the ordinary cares of domestic life continue? Is he further aware that in Northern Ireland one of those principal cares is the high cost of domestic and industrial electricity which is between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. higher than in Great Britain as a whole? Does the noble Earl agree that one of the contributory reasons for that is the bizarre system of charging by the generators who charge Northern Ireland Electricity not according to the units of electricity supplied, but according to their available capacity?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, points out, these are indeed momentous times at this moment in Northern Ireland. But I think that the reports of a substantial disparity between electricity prices in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain have been considerably exaggerated as domestic prices are only 0.1 per cent. higher than in Great Britain; this is mostly brought about through a heavily oil-dependent country, obviously, and also a widely dispersed population. The answer to his second point is that the higher availability which has been achieved since the industry's transfer to the private sector is in actual fact a measure of its own increased efficiency. The benefit for customers of higher plant availability lies in the fact that it delays the time when expensive new generator plant requires to be added to the system.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that widespread concern is felt by industrial consumers of electricity in Northern Ireland about the costs to their enterprises that are likely to

1457
ensue? Will he confirm that the new bulk supply tariff suggests an average cost increase of 10 per cent. to industrial users in Northern Ireland? If the Government's policy is that competitive forces will reduce prices, when is that competitive policy likely to take effect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, these are early days for the privatisation of electricity in Northern Ireland. There is much coming on stream as regards competition in Northern Ireland in the electricity sector. There is the anticipated system of the gas and electricity interconnector from mainland Scotland in 1997 coming through, and also the possibility of an interconnector from the south of Ireland. Overall, the prices have not increased as a result of privatisation. In fact, the price increase on 1st April this year was, in large measure, due to increased world oil prices.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the high cost of electricity presently charged is largely a result of the manner in which the generators were privatised. That, unfortunately, is now water under the bridge. The total bill for electricity in Northern Ireland will not decrease for many years. So far as can be seen, it will be about 2010 before any real reduction from competition can come through the system.
Noble Lords: Question, question!
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that large users—above 1 megawatt—are paying average increases which are 30.2 per cent., higher than they would be if they were positioned in the south west of England? Is the Minister aware that in a recent survey by the CBI, out of 77 responders, 35 expected a delay in investment because of the high cost, and 25 expected further development outside the UK? Will the Minister—
Noble Lords: No.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh that the questions he asked, in the first instance, are a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply in Northern Ireland. Of course, naturally he is aware of the concerns which large industrial consumers have about electricity prices, but he also has a responsibility to protect domestic consumers' interests.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, as the Minister and I fell out over statistics, does he agree with the report issued yesterday by the regulator in Northern Ireland, Mr. Geoffrey Horton, who said of electricity prices in Northern Ireland:
"The standard domestic tariff is the highest in the United Kingdom. It is only just above the next most expensive, but it is substantially above the UK average"?
I find that difficult to reconcile with the 0.1 per cent. extra that the Minister quotes. I wonder whether he would care—perhaps not now but later—to check his statistics.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is the figure that I have at hand. That is the figure that I believe to be correct. I think we really must ask the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to wait for further movement in the competition of the electricity supply in Northern Ireland, which we hope will bring down prices in the next few years.

Habitats and Species: EC Directive
3.24 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to implement the EC habitats and species directive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the responses to our consultation paper on implementation, issued on 4th October, are being considered before the introduction next year of transposing regulations under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The policies and programmes which will help to achieve the objectives of the directive will be taken forward in the context of the biodiversity action plan arising from the commitments entered into in Rio last year. That plan will be published in January.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the Government's plans, so far as they go, but will the Minister take account of the representations made to her department that the Government's proposals do not take adequate account of the key objective in the directive requiring restoration of habitats such as lowland heaths and wetlands, and the restoration of endangered and vanishing species, to attain what is defined in the directive as "favourable conservation status"? Does she also accept that in the case of—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Moran: —strategic environmental assessment under Article 6 of the directive there appears to be a danger—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am asking whether the Minister accepts that there is a danger that the Government might be in legal breach of the directive, and—
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Moran: —that, in respect of Northern Ireland, it appears that progress has been so slow that it will be difficult to meet the June 1994 deadline.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that we believe the regulations will take full account of all the requirements of Article 6; and that the Government intend full implementation across the UK. Northern Ireland has already issued a consultation paper. Favourable conservation status, a point upon which the noble Lord dwelled, is a general concept running through the

1459
directive which will influence interpretation of numerous aspects. We shall seek to agree a common interpretation with colleagues in other member states. The noble Lord can be assured that our commitment to the habitats directive is 100 per cent.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning at a conference on biodiversity in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre across the way the Government received, at the very most, one-and-a-half cheers for what they have been doing? What do the Government propose to do, under present obligations and powers, as well as under future ones, to stop the leach and damage to SSSIs, stemming largely from landowner neglect?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the biodiversity plan has still to be published I am surprised that it received one-and-a-half cheers. There seems to be some scaremongering about SSSIs. English Nature reports that in recent years only one SSSI in England has been lost.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is concern among NGOs that the Government appear to be pursuing a piecemeal approach to environmental methods, especially marine environmental matters? Will the Government make it a statutory requirement that each designated site should have a management plan and that there should be a designated lead organisation for that plan?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have heard about the concern among NGOs that the noble Baroness expressed. The department has consulted them extensively, and will continue to consult on the criteria. Nature conservation agencies have the opportunity to develop management plans for protected areas. The Government encourage that. We believe that conservation is best achieved, where possible, by voluntary activity.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that she has no plans to restore the habitat for wolves in the Scottish Highlands?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord will be reassured to know that we are planning legislation by regulation to implement the directive.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, so far as Scotland is concerned, is it envisaged that Scottish Natural Heritage or, where appropriate, the Red Deer Commission will be consulted before sites or special areas are designated?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to say that on all issues there will be full consultation with those who are expert in the field.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the regulation that the Government are about to issue is under the European Communities Act 1972? Will she further confirm that such a regulation is designed under the Act only to meet the minimum requirements of the directive? Will she further
1460
understand that such a regulation cannot be debated paragraph by paragraph by your Lordships and is not amendable and that furthermore it is the practice of your Lordships not to vote on such regulations? Will the Government come clean and introduce primary legislation which we can debate properly to implement this directive?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that we believe that the framework of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has worked successfully and will continue to work successfully. The regulatory route is the one which will allow us to implement the directive successfully.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: 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 that is to be made in another place on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
I know that it is for the convenience of the House to have as much advance notice as possible of the times of our Recesses. On the eve of the Christmas Recess it may therefore be for the convenience of the House if I were to indicate that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the House will rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday 31st March and that the House will return on Monday 11 th April.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about police areas, police forces and police authorities.; to make provision for England and Wales about magistrates' courts committees, justices' clerks and administrative and financial arrangements for magistrates' courts; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will have been grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for reminding the House on 2nd December that the Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"The First Reading is almost always accorded without dissent or debate … but it is not unknown for the First Reading to be discussed, opposed or refused'".
It is not my intention to seek to oppose or refuse the First Reading of the Bill, but I do intervene at this stage in order to seek answers to questions which may improve informed debate at Second Reading. Before I do so, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his kindness in writing to me today offering to send a copy of the Bill to me if it were inconvenient for me to pick it up tomorrow. I understand that he has written in similar terms to other noble Lords. That was a real courtesy.
In order to improve the quality of debate at Second Reading it would be helpful if the Government were

1461
able to improve the quality of information which is available to noble Lords who will take part in that debate. First, it would be enormously helpful if the Government would publish an analysis of the responses which were made to the White Paper on the reorganisation of the police force. I understand that a list of respondents was made in answer to a Written Question in another place but that it was omitted from Hansard and will not now be available until the Bound Volume has been produced. Nevertheless, it is not just a list of respondents that we need. We need an analysis of the responses if we are to debate this matter properly.
Secondly, it would be very helpful if the Government were able to give more than is normally given in the Financial Memorandum about the cost of the reorganisation of police forces. It was indicated at meetings with the local authority associations in November that the cost might be approximately £12.7 million. Can the Government undertake to circulate to noble Lords or place in the Library a more detailed statement of what appear to be horrendous costs for this unnecessary reorganisation?
Thirdly, as this was not a manifesto commitment, can the Government explain the lack of independent investigation before a decision of this kind was taken? The tripartite relationship, which is after all to be replaced, was decided upon after the establishment of a Royal Commission. Why is this being done without any such independent investigation?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to read again what the Companion says:
"The First Reading is almost always accorded without dissent or debate, both as a matter of courtesy and because the House has normally no knowledge of the Bill until it is printed; but it is not unknown"—
as the noble Lord said—
"for the First Reading to be discussed, opposed or refused".
My noble friend listened carefully to the points that the noble Lord raised, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate for him to give answers to matters relating to a Bill until the Bill has been published.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to recall that his statement in the House two weeks ago was made because his noble friend Lady Blatch accused the Opposition of inadequate attention to the Education Bill as we did not intervene at First Reading on that occasion.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not sure where this exchange will get us. I gave advice to the House because it was in the Companion which sets out the rules of the House. The rules of the House have been around for some time and have been tried and trusted. I believe that it is right that it is not normal for there to be a debate on First Reading, both as a matter of courtesy and because until the Bill has been published noble Lords will not have seen what is in it. I should have thought that that was the best way to proceed. But of course my noble friend has listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and I hope I am in order—noble Lords really must take note of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and indeed by the Leader of the House. I have listened to what the Bill is about and the point I want to make—I think that this is the place to raise it—is that it seems to be a conglomerate Bill. It is about the reorganisation of the police and it is about the reorganisation of the magistrates' courts. Those are two separate matters and therefore those two matters should not be contained in one Bill. It would be for the convenience of the House if we had two Bills as we are dealing with separate issues. That is my point. And, depending on the reply, I may decide to divide the House on the matter.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is up to the noble Lord as to whether or not he thinks his comments are more informed if he knows what the Bill says. However, I think your Lordships would probably consider it better for the Bill to be published so that informed discussion can take place upon it.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is that that this Bill be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
The Lord Chancellor: To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not-Content.
Noble Lords: Content.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think the "Contents" have it.
Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 145(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the licensing of domiciliary care agencies; to make provisions consequential thereon; and for connected purposes.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
3.41 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken tomorrow.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I rise merely to remind your Lordships of the fact that when the House discussed the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill be banned, we were told that the better alternative was to have a debate on financial and economic affairs related to, and at about the time of, a Consolidated Fund Bill. Will my noble friend say whether such a debate will be arranged?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I wish to raise an even more specific matter concerning the Consolidated Fund. I wish to ask the Leader of the House directly whether he considers it proper, in the circumstances I shall outline, to proceed with the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill tomorrow, more or less on the nod.
I am well aware of the convention by virtue of which formal consideration only is given to the Consolidated Fund Bill. Certain arguments have been adduced as regards the necessity of a debate concerning the general state of the economy, the Finance Bill and so on, with which I agree entirely. But even more specific circumstances have arisen which could not possibly have been in mind when the original convention was established.
In the course of exchanges across the House over the past few weeks, it has been established that payments were made from the Consolidated Fund to the tune of some £2.5 billion annually into the funds of the EC on the authority only of the proceedings of the European Council or Council of Ministers. British assent to payments from the Consolidated Fund have been made at prime ministerial level at various conferences without the prior authorisation of Parliament. Therefore, we are left in a position in which a substantial amount of taxpayers' money—approximately £2.5 billion—is paid out without any prior authority whatever. There is no opportunity to debate the European budget which provides for those expenditures and revenues. It seems to me, and I hope that it may seem to your Lordships, that at least that one point—the authorisation of the bulk of the £2.5 billion or thereabouts, as distinct from its detail—should be the subject of informed debate in your Lordships' House.
In the circumstances, perhaps the Leader of the House will consider it wise to defer consideration of the Consolidated Fund Bill tomorrow under the abbreviated
1464
procedure in order that a proper debate through the usual channels can be organised in this House. This is a very grave matter which involves considerable expenditure of taxpayers' money and it should be discussed in your Lordships' House.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I support my noble friend but for different reasons. We heard the Budget introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day; it came across very well. But what emerges from the measures which the Budget seemed to implement is a considerable increase in taxation for the average person. An opportunity is available to this House to hold a considered debate on the subject as a means not simply of informing ourselves through questions which we may ask the Government but of informing the country at large about the real implications of the Budget.
We are given less than a day's notice between First Reading and what would effectively be the Second Reading debate. I accept that the House has no power to vary the Consolidated Fund or to reject it. But we can at least debate the measure and seek to elucidate its implications for, as I said, our own sake and that of the country. I support the request that the Leader of the House should arrange for a suitable debate on the subject when we come back in the new year.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I should explain to your Lordships that the effect of the Motion that I have proposed is simple; namely, to dispense with Standing Order No. 44 for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages tomorrow. It is on that matter that I seek the agreement of your Lordships.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter refers rightly to discussions that have taken place about debates on economic matters. Of course I am happy and. willing that we should have as many of those as are required and for which time can be found. I remind my noble friend that during the debate on the Queen's Speech, one whole day was devoted to economic affairs. There was also the recent debate on an Opposition Motion of censure on the Government's policies in which economic matters featured fairly largely. I agree that that may not be enough to satisfy my noble friend but we shall do our best. We have not ignored his requests.
I know that, as always, the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, are offered in a helpful spirit. However, I wonder whether they are entirely on cue in this regard. The authority for the payments to which the noble Lord refers is to be found in the European Communities Act 1972. That legislation empowers Ministers to deal with the matters referred to by the noble Lord. Therefore, I have no doubt that there is nothing at all improper for your Lordships to consider as regards the Bill to be dealt with tomorrow.
I remind your Lordships that this is a supply Bill. Your Lordships may either pass or reject such Bills but it is not possible to amend them. I believe that that is the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The Budget is enacted by a Finance Bill and not by a supply Bill. The Finance Bill has not yet passed through the House of Commons and, consequently, has not yet arrived in this House. I am sure that proper arrangements will be made to deal with it at that time.

1465
I do not believe that the Consolidated Fund Bill provides an opportunity for the noble Lord to express his views. I hope that he can find a more appropriate occasion on which to do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House sits down, I should like to assure him that we on this side of the House are aware of the view that was taken about the Consolidated Fund Bill which has been tabled for tomorrow. I, for one, as I shall be dealing with the matter, will not seek to prolong it. However, I hope that the noble Lord will take note of what his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
We were promised a debate following the new unified Budget. It disappeared. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to accept from me that I made it very clear to those in what I think one might call the Whips' Office that I expected such a debate; indeed, my view was that this afternoon would have been the ideal time for it. Speaking for myself, I shall certainly not let the matter go. For the very first time in modern history we have the unified Budget and, therefore, I believe that your Lordships are actually obliged to debate it. I must tell the noble Lord the Leader of the House now, as I have the opportunity, that I shall be pressing him on the matter. We must have such a debate. It would look appalling if we do not.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. However, it is a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hereditary Peerages
3.50 p.m.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond rose to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages that may be introduced.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Although it is a formal matter, it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I offered just a few words of explanation. In the new year I hope to introduce a Bill to provide that hereditary peerages will, except where there is a male heir already, descend to the eldest child whether male or female. The opportunity for full debate is of course a Second Reading and, although the Motion that I now propose is an essential preliminary, it is, so I am advised, a purely formal matter. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages that may be introduced.—(Lord Diamond.)
Lord Elton: My Lords, can it be confirmed that, for the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the object or end of his Bill is to further the trend of girls now to take still more of the cake, thus proving that diamonds are still their best friend?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I understand the purpose behind the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. However, the Motion is very wide. It covers any measure dealing with hereditary peerages and not merely the limited one to which he referred. Why is it necessary to take such a wide cover for what is really quite a narrow proposal?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that I should rise to say briefly that I support the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The Motion is a formal one and one which we are advised is necessary in order to enable the noble Lord to introduce his Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion. I suggest that any debate on the merits of the proposed Bill to be introduced by the noble Lord should be deferred until such time as the Bill is given a Second Reading. In supporting the noble Lord, I hope that I do not indicate that I necessarily support the Bill. I believe that the substance of it should be discussed on Second Reading.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. With the deepest respect, it seems to me to be somewhat unfair to Her Majesty to ask for Her prerogative to be used when, for all Her Majesty knows, the Bill may be one which orders execution for every hereditary Peer. I should have thought that it would be somewhat undesirable to put Her Majesty in that position. I know that I shall have the support of every hereditary Peer in the House in saying so.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am in some doubt as to how far the House will be committing itself in approving such a Motion. I agree that the detail will eventually be discussed when the Bill is presented, but the Motion must mean something or nothing. By committing ourselves to agree to move along the line proposed, we will be making a commitment which perhaps we ought not enter into.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that the assumption of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is correct; namely, that not only would the Motion allow the introduction of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but that any other person who feels like producing a Bill dealing with some aspect of hereditary peerages would also be allowed to do so once the Motion is passed? Indeed, we could have any number of Bills of varying character benefiting or disadvantaging the hereditary peerage once the Motion has been passed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend follow up that point and answer my earlier question to which he did not respond; namely, why is it necessary to have a proposal which would cover any amendment to the law affecting hereditary peerages when we are told that the only purpose is a limited and,

1467
arguably, sensible one? Why cannot the Motion be restricted to that? Why must the Royal prerogative be suspended right across the field?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I intervene with some trepidation among the life Peers who have spoken in this short debate. It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that, although the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, (the purpose of which he explained), is the subject of a very much narrower Motion than that which we have in front of us, it is quite possible that the Bill will be amended in any way whatever. Therefore, it seems to me that we need the wider Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which my noble friend the Leader of the House has supported.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. This is a customary Motion that is put forward. As I see it, it is a Motion which will allow your Lordships to discuss the Bill and, presumably, any amendments that may be made to it. Its purpose is also to seek Her Majesty's agreement to the Bill. If the Motion is passed, it will go to the Home Secretary who will give Her Majesty advice on it. It is in accordance with our customs that, when a Private Member's Bill is directed substantially to the Queen's prerogative, the practice is to move an Address for the consent of the Crown before the introduction. I repeat, it is in no way committing us to agree to any part of the Bill or any amendments that might be made to it; it is in order to have a debate and to obtain the Queen's consent for such a debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GATT
3.57 p.m.
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 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the successful conclusion of the world trade negotiations.
"In Geneva yesterday, trade negotiators from 117 countries reached the most wide-ranging agreement ever. After seven years of long, hard and often fraught negotiations, it is a superb outcome. It is a result for which industry, commerce and consumers alike have pressed. It is a conclusion for which this Government have worked tirelessly through many crises, when protectionism threatened British markets and British jobs.
"The new GATT settlement will: help British industry by bringing down barriers to exports of manufactured goods and services; give manufacturers greater protection against piracy of their copyright, patents and designs; bring down prices for consumers, particularly of food, electronics and other manufactured goods; and, strengthen the world trading system against unfair practices by individual countries.
1468
"Britain is the fifth largest exporter in the world of goods and commercial services. We export more, per person, than either the United States or Japan. Our markets are already among the most open. So we stand, therefore, to be one of the biggest gainers from cuts in worldwide tariffs, quotas and other restrictions.
"Sharp reductions in some very high tariffs in the United States and Japan will help Britain in strategic markets. The overall tariff reductions—across all countries of the world—will be around 40 per cent. An independent study has indicated that a new GATT settlement could add up to 4 per cent. to our national output—generating up to 400,000 extra jobs over the next decade.
"The European economies as a group are estimated to be the biggest single gainer. So the GATT deal can be expected to give a much-needed boost to confidence and recovery in our biggest market. As late as last weekend, there was a real and frightening danger that negotiations might unravel. The world faced the choice between a retreat into protectionism, slump and higher unemployment—or free trade, growth and jobs. Happily, it has made the right choice. The Director-General of the CBI has rightly called this, 'a momentous and welcome event'.
"The Government have fought consistently to keep negotiations going. It has been a long struggle. Last year, we faced the prospect not only of failure but of a lurch into trade war between Europe and the: United States. Exports from Europe were threatened by new and punitive American tariffs. We were able to use our Presidency of the European Community to get both sides back to the negotiating table and to make progress on farm trade.
"We encouraged the new United States Administration to extend Congressional authority, in order to permit the GATT round to be concluded. We pressed for the agreement on tariffs at last summer's Tokyo summit—another crucial building-block in the final result. And at this autumn's Commonwealth summit, we launched a special mission to all the key governments of the developed world. This sent the clearest possible signal—on behalf of a quarter of the world's population—that free trade was a prize for developing countries too. Trade, more than aid, is the most certain route to economic development.
"Great credit is due to Sir Leon Brittan, the European Community's negotiator; and to Peter Sutherland, the Director-General of GATT. But others have played a crucial part, including the US negotiator, Micky Kantor. All three had the courage to take on their tasks at a time when it was far from certain they would be rewarded by success.
"Madam Speaker, let me now outline the main features of the agreement. First, industrial goods, where final details are still being worked out. A number of our largest export markets will move towards the total abolition of tariffs in industries which include pharmaceuticals, steel products and spirits. For example, the Scotch whisky industry,

1469
which already has exports totalling about £2 billion a year, will benefit from the complete abolition of Japanese tariffs.
"Cuts in high US tariffs on scientific equipment, chemicals, steel and ceramics, for example, will help us in one of our biggest markets. Our textile manufacturers will gain from tariff cuts in the United States, and gain greater access to many economies along the Pacific Rim.
"Secondly, agriculture, which for the first time will be fully covered by GATT rules. Tariffs are being cut and subsidies reduced substantially, offering families in this country the prospect of lower prices for staple foods.
"In Europe we have already begun the process of reducing farm production subsidies. Overall, these cost every family over £20 a week. The changes to the CAP already agreed—if passed on to the consumer—should over a period lead to price cuts equal to 20p off a pound of beef, 6p off a pound of butter. Under the GATT agreement, other countries—notably Japan and the United States—will have to cut their agricultural subsidies too.
"Thirdly, Madam Speaker, for the first time we have an international set of rules for free trade in services—the fastest-growing sector of the world economy. Services account for two-thirds of our output in the UK, but only about a quarter of our exports. So if we can break down barriers to trade, there is great potential for growth. The services covered range from insurance to consultancy. Many countries have made commitments on financial, telecommunication and transport services.
"This is only a start. Further negotiation with the United States must follow on maritime and on financial services. But we have meanwhile maintained the freedom of the City of London to attract new international business.
"Fourthly, so-called 'intellectual property', where, Madam Speaker, in too much of the world, the law of the jungle still rules. Expensive research and development by British pharmaceutical companies can be pirated—that is, stolen —by countries which offer no protection of patents. The same is true of Britain's record industry, which estimates that as much as half its market in the developing world is stolen by pirate goods. For the first time, we now have an agreed set of international rules, on which we can begin to rely in our fight to give these industries the markets they have a right to expect.
"Madam Speaker, free trade increases the need for businesses to be internationally competitive. But in Britain, we have world class companies, ready for the challenge. This new GATT settlement removes the threat of collapse of the world trade system—a system on which economic growth has been based for nearly half a century. It extends the benefits of trading rules into vast new areas of business. It brings further, welcome reductions in tariffs on British goods.
1470
"It is a platform for recovery, growth and jobs—in Britain, the European Community, and the rest of the world. I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement that was made in another place. As he said, these negotiations have taken seven long and eventful years, and it is a tribute to the staying power of the negotiators involved that a conclusion has finally been reached. We on these Benches welcome this agreement and we hope it will provide a significant boost to world trade at a time when many economies are experiencing recession and unemployment.
We should place on record our congratulations to the three people most directly involved in this settlement; namely, Mr. Kantor for the United States, Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the European Union and Mr. Peter Sutherland on behalf of GATT itself. We should congratulate them not only on their negotiating skill but also on their collective commitment to the efficacy of creative insomnia. It seems to me that more has been achieved by their staying awake at nights over a period of time than has ever previously been achieved in international negotiations.
I am sure noble Lords on all sides of the House appreciate the importance of the conclusion of this agreement. It will cut tariffs; it will, hopefully, open up markets and it represents an historic opportunity to kick-start the global economy. However, it is vital that the signatories to GATT recognise this and translate the full potential of this agreement into growth, jobs and investment. I wish to ask about three specific matters which were dealt with in the Statement.
First, as regards trade in financial services, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that access to the United States will still be limited? If that is so, where do we go from here? What sort of negotiations—and in what forum—does he envisage in order to persuade the United States that their commitment to free trade in financial services should be as great as their commitment to free trade in other sectors?
Secondly, I wish to comment on French agriculture and the changes to the Blair House agreement. Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that, whatever changes take place to the Blair House agreement, that in no way prejudices the reform of the common agricultural policy, and indeed would not add any burdens to Community expenditure on the CAP? Thirdly, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House recognise that, while for the developed world this may be a great breakthrough, and indeed probably is, for some developing countries it will cause immediate problems? That is certainly true for some African countries. If the Government recognise that, what steps do they propose to take—as they should—to try to alleviate the difficulties that some of the primary producing countries are bound to experience as a result of this agreement, which will almost certainly result,

1471
initially at any rate, in a fall in the export prices of their primary products? I should be grateful to hear the Minister's comments on those three points. In summary, it was important for the world economy that this agreement was successfully concluded and successfully negotiated. We are pleased that that occurred and we hope that we can now build on the agreement.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we can certainly agree on expressing general satisfaction at the outcome of the negotiations and join in the congratulations, particularly to Mr. Peter Sutherland and Sir Leon Brittan. In good wishes to Sir Leon on Monday I indicated that in my view he has found his ideal métier as a high-grade international negotiator of complicated matters.
It is also worth noting that the outcome is a considerable triumph for the European Community, or Union as I shall have great difficulty in getting used to calling it. I have no doubt that in the tough and protracted negotiations, had we been dealing with the power of the United States as fragmented, individual nation states of 50 million people, the Americans would have carved us up to a much greater extent. I do not believe that they have done so. People often ask what are the concrete benefits of the Community. Here is one very clear and large benefit.
We must recognise that the main beneficiaries of the agreement are Europe, the United States, Japan and the other Pacific rim countries. It is a classic example of to those that hath shall be given. In a way it is right that that should be so because I am in favour of providing a stimulus to the OECD and industrialised world at present. However, we should be aware that some do much less well. Compensation is a rather hallowed word in the GATT, and the Government and other comparable governments should give great consideration to the compensation, whether in the form of aid or of trade benefits, which they are prepared to give to those who come out of the agreement much less favourably than we and other rich countries.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for their remarks. I am very pleased that they used such warm words. They are right to congratulate, as the Prime Minister did in his Statement, those who had the principal responsibility for negotiating the agreement. It has been a formidable exercise and it has involved many thousands more people than just the leaders. I should like to pay a personal tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister whose personal involvement, I know from my own experience, was essential at various times during the round. He played a very large part.
I shall comment on the points raised by the noble Lords. When we achieved this agreement my reaction was one of relief because the alternative to reaching the agreement would have been utter disaster. The agreement provides us with formidable opportunities.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me about financial services. For the first time financial services will be included under the trade rules. The agreement includes many worthwhile commitments which will
1472
increase the opportunities for UK companies to expand their overseas markets. It is disappointing that the United Kingdom has not obtained as much as it hoped in the opening up of financial services. The position regarding the United States is that the existing access will be maintained but negotiations are continuing to open other markets further. Those negotiations will be undertaken by the United States and the EC, whose interests on these matters are very similar.
As regards the position of French farmers and agriculture, no special measures are needed to compensate EC farmers for the effect of the agreement. Indeed, at the European Council meeting in Brussels on 10th and 11 th December it was made clear that any further measures must be financed within the financial limits on expenditure agreed at the Edinburgh Council.
The third point which the noble Lord raised concerned the under-developed world. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also asked about that. First, it would not have been possible to reach agreement on world trade unless the other major trading blocs had agreed. Other trading blocs, particularly the Cairns Group, have consistently been among its strongest supporters and have welcomed the agreement. In addition, the Limassol agreement of the Commonwealth countries, both developed and developing, demonstrated the desire of developing countries to see a conclusion to the negotiations. It is important to remember that developing countries earn three times as much from trade as from aid. The other important safeguard is that the changes will be phased in over a period, in some cases of 10 years. Therefore, there will be opportunities for both developing and developed countries to adjust.
4.16 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, should not my right honourable friend and Her Majesty's present Administration be congratulated on pushing so hard for free trade and free access? Is it not also true that it is the. European Union which has benefited from this savage push for free trade which is so necessary?
Having said that, when the agricultural positions finally come into being in 2005, how much subsidy will still exist in both the United States and the European Community on agricultural products? Is it not now time, to start thinking about the potential of Eastern Europe and the Ukraine, despite the appalling mess which exists at the moment in relation to their agricultural produce, bearing in mind that that area exported in the region of 15 million tonnes of grain in 1913?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is a complex agreement. All the details do not emerge at once and we do not have them all yet. The EC itself has more than 10,000 separate tariff lines.
I am not sure that I can answer my noble friend's question in relation to agricultural support. However, under the agreement there is a commitment to a steady reduction in EC tariffs on imported agricultural products. For consumers that means an average reduction of 36 per cent. and not less than 20 per cent. for any particular foodstuffs over the six years. In addition, where there was previously low or minimal

1473
access for agricultural imports the agreement provides for improved access at reduced rates of tariffs. It is certain that the agreement will lead to a cheaper and wider range of food imports. I am not able to give the exact figure and I doubt whether it is known.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following his noble friend's question, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that the present agreement, that a reduction of 30 per cent. in agricultural prices will be compensated by area payments, will not be affected?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that is my understanding of the position, but I shall check for the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is pleasing to note the unanimity of acceptance of the outcome of the negotiations. However, there is one item which I believe ought not to pass and which worries me a little. In relation to financial services the noble Lord, Lord Richard, implied a criticism of the United States in not having given even more. It is sad that that, even as an implication, should be on the record because the United States moved considerably. In answering that point, my noble friend seemed marginally to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. If we begin, even by implication, to criticise the Americans for what they have not given we may encourage people on the other side of the Atlantic to criticise France for perhaps asking for too much. That atmosphere ought not to be allowed to develop in these early stages if we can possibly avoid it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House replies, perhaps I may give this information to the noble Lord who criticises me. The Americans gave nothing on financial services. It is not a question of saying that they have given a bit and that they should have given more. As I understand it, on financial services the position remains identical to what it was before the agreement was negotiated.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer both points of both noble Lords. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is wrong. The fact is that the United States has agreed that financial services will come within the trade rules for the first time. That is a substantial move in the right direction. However, I do not believe that I am criticising anyone particularly. It is a wonderful agreement and everyone had to give and take a little to achieve it; but it was absolutely vital that we did so. However, the British negotiators would prefer to have more access to the United States market for financial services. The United States recognises that as a reasonable request, and we continue to negotiate. That is in no sense a criticism; it is in the context of seeking to make improvements for the future.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we are all encouraged and delighted at the result of the negotiations. Quite specific estimates have been made as to the growth in world trade, employment, and so on, as a result. Have any specific calculations been made on the impact of the agreement on the third world? There is a suggestion, in particular from representatives of the African states, that it is a triumph for a rich man's club
1474
and that those states will not benefit greatly from the new agreements. Since any subsidies paid from the European fund will be limited within the total budget, as the noble Lord mentioned, will subsidies, assistance or aid programmes to the third world be limited to the overall claim on the European funds from the common agricultural policy, television companies, and so on? Have any calculations been made of the total impact on third world countries? Is the agreement defensible on those terms?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, at least the developing countries think it is defensible. They very much supported the agreement for a number of reasons. For example, they believe strongly that the agreement provides protection by proper rules on intellectual property rights. That will encourage western companies to invest in factories and plant in their countries and will provide many advantages.
However, everyone gains in the long run from a more liberal trade regime. It is not possible to work out a fixed gain/loss scenario. Some studies were done before the round was completed but they have all been based on assumptions about the balance of tariff cuts which may or may not be the final outcome. There will no doubt be other detailed analyses of the precise impact on specific areas but they will not be available for some time. Most of the previous analyses were done before the final outcome was known.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the agreement has been a remarkable success despite the ingrained protectionism in some areas, which included some proclaimed protection of culture. Is there any doubt whether the agreement will receive the necessary number of ratifications within the time required in order that the actions intended can be carried out?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone who signed the agreement in Geneva does not expect that his country will ratify the agreement, but the process has to be gone through. The United States Congress has to ratify. By achieving the 15th December deadline it ensures the fast track procedure. It is hoped that there will be a final signing ceremony; I believe some time in the spring in Marrakesh or somewhere rather pleasant.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the issue of third world countries. He is quite correct that no estimates have been made of gains and losses since the agreement was reached. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the OECD calculated that the loss to the poorest countries is likely to be of the order of £9 billion a year. If one gives or takes £2 billion a year, that is a substantial sum of money. I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government and other signatories to the agreement, in particular the European Community, are taking urgent steps to consider what compensatory arrangements can be made to compensate for that substantial loss, which will afflict the poorest people in the world.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not prepared to accept the premise of the noble Lord's question that there are losers. I am sure that some will gain more than others; and I believe that there is a proper analysis of the matter. Certainly the developing countries have very much welcomed the agreement. I was referring to the OECD study when, in answering the noble Lord on the Labour Benches, I said that the assumptions of that report were not necessarily those in the final outcome. No doubt we shall return to the subject.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I believe that all nations, even those who might be held to lose under the agreement, will share the noble Lord's relief that agreement has been reached. The round was becoming known as the "general agreement on talking and talking", as some noble Lords may have read.
I believe that the organising, disciplinary body that will be set up to head a GATT will be called the Multilateral Trading Organisation. Does the noble Lord have information on how that body will be composed? Will there be a majority representation of the richer countries? Will the representation be based on population, region, or what? Will there be a rotation of nations which serve on that body? It will be necessary for the developing countries to have good representation on that organisation in order to put their views forward and make their concerns known to everyone in the organisation.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not have the full details; I doubt whether they have been worked out. However, I should have thought that every signatory to the agreement would be represented in some form or another on the world trade organisation. The organisation will put the international trading system on a permanent institutional basis for the first time. That has been welcomed by the developing countries and by the more developed countries. The organisation will be able to apply effective disciplines on unilateral action and set up better systems for settling trade disputes. That has to be done in a manner that is considered by all signatories to the agreement to be fair and proper. Most importantly it will have tougher powers and will be able to act more quickly than in the past. That must be in the interests of those who believe in world trade and in fair world trade.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it is surprising to support the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his Statement today, but there is anxiety that there may be losers. The continent of Africa has been referred to as a possible loser. I accept that it may be too early to make projections. However, I hope that the Government will consider the evolving trade situation and will bear in mind that it is of the utmost importance for the stability of the world at large that there are not seen to be losers, and that living standards do not drop as a result of the new regime. I hope that the Government will take active steps to ensure that that does not occur.
Secondly, what plans do the Government have to take advantage of the increase in world trade from this agreement? Specifically, what plans have they to invest in British shipping and containerised trans-shipment
1476
points so that British companies can take advantage of the increase in world trade? Bearing in mind the sad decline of our merchant fleet over the past 15 years under this Government, what plans have the Government for investing in a modern merchant fleet which can take advantage of the increase in world trade?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord kindly started by saying that he agreed with much of what I said. However, I am sorry to disagree with him on his other points as I do not believe that he has the matter in the right perspective. A substantial increase in world trade will flow from the agreement. I do not believe that anyone would have signed it if they thought they would be worse off. They will all be better off. It is possible that some may be better off than others and if there are problems no doubt they will be addressed in the future. However, we do not expect that to be the case. Certainly the developing countries have welcomed the agreement.
The noble Lord's last point was that the Government should use the additional trade and aid that we obtain to invest in this and that. First, I thought that we had gone past those stages years ago. Secondly, the new agreement almost certainly makes that kind of government subsidy no longer permissible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord help me with one question? He said that there would be a substantial increase in world trade as a result of the agreement. I hope that that is absolutely right. However, I have heard figures bruited abroad that the increase will be 200 billion dollars a year, on a total trade of 4.5 trillion dollars. I calculate that to be just under a half of 1 per cent., which is not a substantial increase. It may be that I am completely wrong, and if so I should like it explained to me.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the figures I have and which I quoted are an increase of 4 per cent. in our trade. I would expect that to be reasonably fair across the world, although we may have done slightly better than others. The estimate is of 400,000 extra jobs in this country as a result of the agreement.

Companies Act 1985 (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993
4.32 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to the Insurance Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Insurance Undertakings) Regulations 1993.
The regulations are for the purpose of implementing the EC Council directive on the accounts of insurance undertakings which was adopted in December 1991. They are primarily concerned with the presentation and content of the annual report and accounts of insurance companies to their shareholders or members. They also deal with consolidation of the accounts of insurance

1477
groups. They will apply to accounts prepared in respect of all financial years starting on or after 23rd December 1994 although companies may follow them earlier if they wish.
The first, and by far the larger, of the two sets of regulations is that made under the Companies Act 1985. It will apply to almost all British insurance companies. Its rules for the preparation of accounts will replace those currently set out in Schedule 9A to the Act.
The second set of regulations applies what is essentially the same set of rules to a very small number of insurance undertakings which are covered by the directive but which are not currently required to prepare accounts under the Companies Act.
Up to now, although insurance company accounts have had to be audited, it has not been necessary for the auditor to give an opinion on whether or not the full accounts are true and fair. Under these regulations, however, it will be compulsory for insurance company accounts to give a true and fair view of company assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. It will no longer be possible to have hidden reserves, permitted under the current law.
The regulations require considerable disclosure of information. Standard formats for the balance sheet and profit and loss account are prescribed. There will be detailed rules concerning accounting treatments and the valuation of certain types of asset and liability and a specification of matters to be disclosed in the notes to the accounts. Almost all of this detail derives directly from the directive.
The Government have consulted extensively with the insurance industry and other interested parties over the last two years since the directive was adopted. I am pleased to pay tribute to the admirable assistance we have received from those quarters. Their views and comments have been invaluable in drafting these regulations.
We believe the new style of accounts prepared under the regulations will be welcomed by all users of accounts—shareholders, members, intermediaries, analysts and others. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston apologises for his absence and has asked me to say that these measures have his full approval and that of these Benches.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Insurance Undertakings) Regulations 1993
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this set of regulations with the earlier set of regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pastoral (Amendment) Measure
4.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain as briefly as possible the content and purpose of the Measure. It is a Measure dealing with redundant Church of England churches. The reason for its short title is that it amends the existing legislation on the subject, the Pastoral Measure 1983. The word "redundant" conjures up rather negative images, but the Measure is in fact a positive one. It aims at improving the arrangements for Church buildings which, for whatever reason, are no longer required for their original purpose. If I may put the matter in context, your Lordships may like to know that 20 to 30 out of 16,000 Church of England churches are declared redundant each year and that between 10 and 20 new places of worship are opened each year.
The future of the buildings and all that belongs to them is obviously of major concern to the Church of England itself, but it is also of concern to the wider community. One reason is that the local community often sees the church building as a vital part of its history and a focus of its life, both now and in the future. At a national level, the state, as well as the Church, contributes substantial sums of money to the Redundant Churches Fund to help it care for some of the most important redundant churches for which no suitable alternative use can be found. Because of that, the Government and the Church Commissioners joined together in 1989 in asking Mr. Richard Wilding to review the operation and financing of the Redundant Churches Fund. When he reported in 1990, he made over 60 recommendations and the Government and the Church Commissioners have accepted the majority of them.
Some of the recommendations do not require legislation, but at least one calls for an Act of

1479
Parliament. No doubt, your Lordships will be asked in due course to consider a Bill to deal with the matter. The Measure before your Lordships today includes the provisions which the General Synod needed to pass to implement the Wilding report. Many are of a financial nature. For example, they lay down more flexible arrangements for the financing of the Redundant Churches Fund.
Apart from financial matters, the Measure changes the name of the Redundant Churches Fund to the Churches Conservation Trust which reflects the fact that the fund is a practical and positive body whose churches take on a new and positive role in the community when they come into the fund's hands. The Measure also includes a few other provisions which the Church Commissioners, the Department of National Heritage or the Redundant Churches Fund have suggested in order to improve the practical working of the 1983 Measure.
I refer to Clause 7, which the Ecclesiastical Committee mentions in its report. That clause deals with the provisions for removing the legal effects of consecration—as opposed to what I might call the spiritual significance of consecration—when a redundant church or land is being disposed of. The main effect of removing the legal effect of consecration is that it is no longer necessary to go to the consistory court for a faculty before making alterations to the property.
Clause 7 makes the existing provisions for removing the legal effects of consecration slightly wider. But it does not affect the provision in the 1983 Measure under which the scheme dealing with a particular church may always preserve the effects of consecration where that seems desirable. In any case, removing the faculty jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that the new owner is completely free to deal with the property as he likes, because of the restrictive covenants to which I have already referred.
The Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention to the ecological importance of many churches and burial grounds and the need to safeguard this. It is widely recognised that churchyards are often the main, if not the only, sanctuary for wildlife for many miles around. The Church and other bodies are doing a great deal to provide encouragement, information and advice about wildlife conservation for all those who are responsible for them. There is always, in any case, an opportunity for members of the public and official bodies to make representations before a redundancy scheme is made in order to deal with concerns about wildlife, and those would be given due weight if any such representations were made.
That concern for the environment highlights one aspect of the matter which I mentioned in opening; namely, that the future of redundant churches and all that belongs to them is of concern to the wider community as well as to the Church. The Measure which is now before the House seeks to ensure that the best possible arrangements are made for them. I therefore ask noble Lords to support the Measure, and the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Guildford.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we have no difficulty in supporting this Measure, and the Ecclesiastical Committee had no difficulty in declaring it expedient. Obviously, it needs to go through this House and to get Royal Assent as quickly as possible. The only point that I had intended to make, and will still make, is that which the right reverend Prelate just mentioned; namely, the ecological value of burial grounds and churchyards in some cases. In areas where there is a great deal of chemical farming, such places are quite often the last haven for wildlife, for plants and for animals. It is very important that that point is recognised, and I am very relieved to hear the right reverend Prelate give it his attention. I hope that the Measure will go through as quickly as possible.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee I too can find nothing that we should comment on in the general bulk of the Measure before us. It seems admirable, and it has been given due and proper consideration by the Church authorities. I too would like to draw attention to the ecological point. It is important. I think it probably was the noble Baroness who drew the attention of the Ecclesiastical Committee to this particular point when we considered it.
It was in the days of high farming, when relentless war was waged on conservation right across the courtly, that the Churches maintained their tradition of being, in a way, a sanctuary for wildlife. These days it is not quite so important. With low farming and set-aside, conditions are less threatening outside. Nevertheless, it remains important. At the species diversity conference this morning, which I mentioned earlier, consideration was given to the fact that it is not enough to have SSSIs and particularly designated small areas. Rather, it is important that there should be a network over the whole countryside so that there is not just a single area which may be quite insufficient for the retention and for the breeding of a single species. It is important to have such a network over the countryside. It is absolutely right that the Church, with its strong doctrine of creation, should safeguard that.
The right reverend Prelate said that there was machinery for dealing with this matter. He said that it would be given "due weight". That phrase is a little ambivalent. I would welcome something much stronger. "Due weight" depends on what your attitude is when you do the weighing. I would like a commitment that it will be given very strong weight and will be taken very seriously into account. It is a matter about which the whole of Parliament probably feels very strongly; and I am sure that the whole Church feels very strongly. Therefore they should reach agreement on it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I had not intended to interfere in this debate, but I would like to say that from the whole of the discussion it would appear that a wildlife sanctuary in the churchyard is very

1481
important. I disagree. I believe that the main aim should be to preserve the architectural beauty and the historical importance of such sites in the community. I live and work in a high farming community. There is a lot of wildlife. If it had to depend on the well-kept churchyards in that county, there would be no wildlife at all.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that a great deal is done to ensure that churchyards, though they are finally designed to be resting places for the departed, are also fortunately places for life.
Perhaps I may give a further reassurance: the code of practice for the care of churches and ecclesiastical jurisdiction measure contains specific recommendations about the importance of wildlife within churchyards; so does the Churchyards Handbook. None of those documents is the kind of matter that noble Lords would normally read in bed, but they are documents which are readily available to those who have these responsibilities. An information pack produced by a number of conservation bodies is available and contains a number of leaflets, including Discovering Butterflies in Churchyards, and so on. So due weight is given to the importance of wildlife in churchyards. But we have to recognise that that is not their only purpose. Therefore, with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I would wish to stick to the phrase "due weight". But I assure noble Lords that the matter is taken seriously and I hope that noble Lords will support this particular measure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
4.48 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may say at the outset that if I tend to lean on the back of a Back Bench, it is for physical support and not for political comfort.
This is the third time that I have moved the Second Reading of this Bill. But I assure noble Lords that I have no intention of making a habit of it. Until now there has been a strategic purpose behind everything I have done on this Bill. And there will continue to be that purpose, unless the speech of the noble Lord on the Front Bench differs from what I think it is likely to be.
I can also promise not to be guilty of tedious repetition. I shall not take your Lordships over the speeches that I made before. Indeed they are somewhat irrelevant to our position today, which I hope to deal with very briefly. In fact I should have been very happy to be left alone with the noble Lord on the Front Bench who will speak for the Government. I hope that I can do business with him this afternoon. Whether he has any business to do with me is another matter. We shall see.
This Bill originated three Sessions ago but it did not arise out of any events connected with dangerous dogs. We had not heard of dangerous dogs at that time. We
1482
had heard a great deal about a national registration scheme for all dogs. Your Lordships agreed an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill which staggered the Government because it instructed them to go into the question of a national registration scheme for all dogs and they did not like it. But the Bill went to the other place and gained so much support that the Prime Minister became gravely anxious. There was rebellion in the air.
There seemed to be a general desire in both Houses for a national dog registration scheme. The time came, on a crucial vote in the other place, when the Whips apparently advised that there were so many people in favour—Ministers and Back-Benchers—that they doubted whether the Government could hold a majority against the amendment on the Floor of that House. So enough money was spent to pay for two years for the Dog Control and Welfare Council in order to get back supporters from all corners of the earth. Even when that was done and the three-line Whip was dripping with ink, the Prime Minister had a majority of fewer than five. I do not know the exact figure, but it was a shocker. The smallest majority in the other place during her premiership was on the national dog registration scheme.
It struck me how futile it all was. Why was there so much debate about a national dog registration scheme without having some investigation into the need for it or its purpose? Should not evidence have been taken about it to find out what kind of consensus of opinion could be achieved? I then thought about how we had solved problems of that kind elsewhere. I recalled the time in 1979 when I went to see the chairman of the Conservative Party, who happened to be the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. I went with a message from the Prime Minister at that time, my noble friend Lord Callaghan, to the effect that it was his intention, if returned as Prime Minister, to set up a standing Royal Commission on animal welfare and spread an umbrella over the whole area of animal well-being, their relationships with society and so on.
But the noble Viscount thought that it was better for each area of administration to find its own way into advisory machinery. He said that he would upgrade the Farm Animal Welfare Council and make it an effective body. He would also in the Home Office upgrade the Animal Procedures Committee under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. He did both. A department that is responsible for administering a controversial area of public affairs cannot expect to keep in close enough touch with the formation of opinion or go for the kind of advice that is needed in a developing situation.
This Bill is a copybook copy of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. In fact the Farm Animal Welfare Council did not need statutory support. It was done by regulation. But the Animal Procedures Committee set up under the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act is a statutory committee with powers embodied in the Act itself. They were very strong powers that we insisted on at the time.
Let me turn to the Home Office. The Home Office does not have complete responsibility for the care, welfare and control of dogs. To some extent its work has

1483
been hived off to the Department of the Environment because it is responsible for keeping the parks clean and dealing with other nuisances in the purview of the local authorities. As a sop the Government added to the Environmental Protection Bill at the end of that controversy a huge slice of new material on strays and animal behaviour in municipal parks and on pavements. It was a kind of compensation for having been frustrated over the national registration scheme.
In previous speeches I have tried to make out a case for the Home Office having at its disposal similar advisory machinery. It got into an awful mess over the dog registration scheme. Strictly speaking, it was not the Home Office that was in the mess but the Government, because the Department of the Environment was also heavily involved. We thought that this was an opportunity for the Home Office to bring the dog situation under better control. By that time the issue of dangerous dogs had arisen and we saw what was happening.
This Bill presumes that the expense of the council will be borne by the Government. It does not provide for it. If the Bill goes to another place it will be there that the financial provision will be made. When I first raised the matter I was told that public expenditure was under review and things were getting very difficult. I was told that it was not a very favourable atmosphere for public expenditure on a matter of this kind. The second time round I received that message rather more strongly. In the intervening informal approaches that I made, it came firmly from the Government that there was no more money for this measure. Indeed, it was suggested by the Home Office that it did not think that the Bill was really necessary, the need was not as strong as I had made out, and it had plenty of advice at its disposal.
If noble Lords want to read a rather appalling account of what a Home Secretary can go through and what he can do, perhaps I may suggest that they read Mr. Kenneth Baker's chapter on dangerous dogs in his recent memoirs. He believed himself to be the hero of the piece, of course, and not the victim of the tabloid press, which in fact he was. I must not spend time on that; your Lordships can read it for yourselves. If anyone gets any comfort at all from reading the confessions of a Home Secretary in that situation, I shall be extremely surprised.
But there is more to come in regard to dogs than Members realise. Trouble is looming in relation to dogs. For one thing, there are so many of them; for another, they matter so much to individuals; and, finally, they arouse emotions for and against the canine world which stray into political attitudes.
I must come to the point of what I want from the noble Lord opposite. There is to be no money from the Government. But they add, "If you want to embark on the creation of a dog control and welfare council yourselves, not requiring any government money, you are welcome to have a go". That is the position that I bring to the House this afternoon. It is said that there is no Government money available. That is why the matter was not taken up in the House of Commons when the Bill went through all stages and was duly passed on 16th November 1992. The Bill has already been passed by
1484
this House. Why then do I have to bother again? It is because I cannot put it into effect except on the basis of what I am now saying to the Benches opposite.
Where is the money to come from and on what terms will we be able to use it? What is, in general, the attitude of the Government to the novel way in which they suggest we proceed? I know of no standing advisory committee of the prestige that we seek which is sustained on non-governmental resources. Yet this will have to be sustained on non-governmental resources. We shall have to obtain the money from some-where—we have a good idea where we can obtain it but that is beside the point. If we do that—we have reached the stage where, if we are going to do it at all, we shall have to embark on it soon—what will be the attitude of the Government towards this "chicken" created especially by private effort to give good advice continuously to the Home Office, which is always in need of it?
What we are offering is the prospect that, free of charge, the Government will have the facilities of a standing advisory council of the quality outlined in the Bill. It is not a fly-by-night; it is not a cook-up to enable the animal liberation people to sit on a government committee. Our privately created and financed council would be the one stipulated in the Bill. Our scheme would fit neatly into the Bill and that is why I continue to bring the matter before the House. I shall keep bringing the Bill before the House for as long as I can or for as long as I need to. It is like the Ark of the Covenant that we carry around with us and say, "This is the advisory committee that is on offer. What use will you make of it?"—but more important—"what will be your attitude towards it?"
I will suggest a few words to the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite and see what he says. He need only utter the right word and I shall sit down. Will the attitude of the Government be cordial? Will it be encouraging? Will it incorporate the spirit of goodwill? Will it offer co-operation? Will it establish a relationship which, although no money changes hands, will nevertheless be the sort of relationship where two parties come together in a common effort?
The noble Lord may wish to use other words that may be in his mind—indifferent, an intrusion, hostile, a nuisance. There are plenty more words if one looks in the dictionary. They are all there and he is free to choose whichever one he wants. I want from the Minister a suitable word of encouragement regarding this non-government funded council to enable us to go with confidence to those who will be asked to put up the money. They will not want to donate the large amount of money needed without obtaining some assurance that when the council is provided—no doubt based on a charitable foundation with some of the principal sponsors being trustees, who will appoint the officers of the council and its members—a suitable relationship will be established.
Would it help if we said that we are prepared to pay for the blessing of the Government if they do not rob the council of its independence? I throw out a few ideas. Perhaps it would help if we said to the Government, "You appoint a chairman", or "Would you like to

1485
approve the members that we select? What do you want from us to make the council acceptable as a partnership?" How big are the Government and how big can they make the council? That is what I am after.
I congratulate the noble Lord opposite on coming from the back seats to the Front Bench in one leap. But I am quite sure that he has not come with any licence to utter a single word that has not already been written for him by the Home Office. I do not want to tell any secrets, but other Members of your Lordships' House sitting in his seat have come to me at times and said, "I must see whether the officials will agree to that". They must see whether the officials will agree to it. To what depth has ministerial representation come when he has to run like that to the officials?
I know too much about how those matters work behind the scenes. The office line is laid down, probably from higher up. It does not want to bother with it any more so the officials are given the right to supervise what junior people are allowed to say.
When looking at what comes out of the Home Office we need to look at what has been going into the Home Office over the past 10 years. At the beginning of the present Administration we had the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, as Home Secretary, then followed Leon Brittan; then followed Douglas Hurd. They in turn occupied the seat of Home Secretary for the first 10 years of this Administration—stalwart, steady, stable. Then the rot set in. The Prime Minister wanted to get rid of Geoffrey Howe. He offered him the position of Home Secretary even when Douglas Hurd still held it and had not heard a word about it, but he refused. But Douglas Hurd did move and then look what we got!
We have had four Home Secretaries in the past four years. First, the period of office was four years, then two years and then four years among the saviours of the Home Office whom I have described. Now we have tenure of one year or one and a half years. The new one may last. His head is full of crime. He wants to look at all the prisons he can so that he knows how to make more of them.
One wonders what 'direction one is getting from the Home Office as regards its great variety of worries and troubles at present. Kenneth Baker was Home Secretary for 18 months. There was something in the good old chestnut story that the worst Ministry to be posted to was the one which Kenneth Baker had just left. There was a good deal of truth in that. Kenneth Clarke was only in that position for a few months before he was being talked about for the Prime Minister's job.
The Home Office has now become a staging post. It is a junction at which people meet on their travels elsewhere even though they may be travelling out. So what confidence can we have in that set up? Then one must consider all the junior Ministers and permanent officials who have changed. An official can go from animals to prisons and then immigration. Just consider the list of things which the Home Office is dealing with from time to time. These officials are pushed around in order to get experience so that an experienced animal
1486
man is promoted to be a deputy secretary or something of that kind, and he moves off. The new man comes in, knows nothing and has to start afresh.
We have to train these fellows and we do not charge for it. We have to let them into the secrets of their new profession. There is no comfort in the Home Office at the present time. I wonder whether the noble Lord on the Front Bench will have the opportunity of lifting our hearts on this matter. Much will depend on what he says in a few minutes. We then have to decide what to do: do we manage without this measure altogether or try another route?
I have spoken partly for business reasons and partly for entertainment. I like the House to be buoyed up a little on virtually its last day and to have a bit of fun. I am glad that we had a little fun this afternoon. I am obliged to my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench for appearing to be in support. I have to apologise to a number of my friends in all parts of the House who cannot be here this afternoon.
On 17th January we are calling together for the fourth time the most representative body of organisations representing dogs that we have ever seen in this country—there will be 22 of them. Everyone who knows anything about dogs is a member of our new dog law reform group. What is more, money came rolling in. We only had to say that we wanted money to draft new laws for dogs and we received a large measure of public support.
The bitterest moment as regards dogs is to come when I have to introduce the Dangerous Dogs Act (Amendment) Bill in the New Year. Then I shall not be so entertaining. Indeed, I shall look at my dictionary for a few new words which I can use about the events of 1991. I have spoken for far too long, but if noble Lords have not felt that it is long, then the strain on my ageing legs has been borne with happiness and contentment.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. This is a very simple Bill, barely two pages long, but with very clear objectives in mind. I shall not dwell on its contents, which have already been outlined by the noble Lord, except to say that its aim is to work closely, not only with government, but with all the groups in the canine world.
I would like to say a word or two about the deregulation Bill which is due next year and particularly about the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. The potential abandonment of that Act really is a cause for concern. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there are puppy farming establishments in Wales which are very substandard and which have no regard to the welfare of the animals in them. Some puppy farmers do not even have a licence to run an establishment. Some local councils do not appear to be very concerned and do not even make regular checks on the ones they do license. Sadly, it is left to inspectors, who have to cover a wide area, to check not only the licensed premises, but also to track down the unlicensed ones. This makes their job

1487
doubly difficult. I am not saying that all puppy farms are bad, but a great many are. Without the Breeding of Dogs Act what hope is there for the unfortunate dogs trapped in these situations?
The Bill we are discussing could draw up guidelines and, with government backing, see them enforced. While on the subject of puppies, let us think about those exported to Hong Kong. They are only eight weeks old, unvaccinated and often, within a short space of time of arriving, they are ill. I am sure that that cannot be right. If we care about our animals at all we should do our best to stop this sort of trade in such very young animals.
The deregulating of the Pet Animals Act 1951 will allow those who already run a bad establishment to become even worse, with little fear of prosecution. Quite frankly, I would like to see the sale of pets from shops ended altogether. If one wants a pedigree dog, then why not buy it from a reputable breeder whose establishment has been checked or, preferably, from a dogs' home, thereby giving an abandoned dog a chance of a decent life?
With the increasing movement of domestic pets between the United Kingdom and Europe as frontiers come down, I suspect that sooner or later we shall have to inoculate all our dogs against rabies. Surely, some sort of record will have to be kept as the disease also affects humans. Perhaps the Government will look at the permanent identification of dogs in future.
The deregulation Bill addresses a number of areas of welfare legislation with a view to stripping away controls. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will establish a body that can review these laws with a view to making them more effective, thereby ensuring that dog control and animal welfare legislation can be comprehensive. Finally, we hope that the Minister will give this Bill its due consideration.
5.19 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on a subject he covers so well and so thoroughly, for putting the simple contents of the Bill so clearly to your Lordships. Whenever there are debates concerning dogs in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is always there, tireless as ever, supporting dogs. dog owners and groups who work for dogs. There is little for the rest of us to say except to give our support.
I know from past experience that, where the Government are concerned, arguments for dog registration fall, not on deaf ears, but certainly on unreceptive ears. A huge majority of people in this country favour some kind of dog registration scheme. The matter is further complicated by the opening of the Channel Tunnel. By and large neighbouring countries have sensible registration schemes of one form or another. But people whose journey with their dogs may have taken 25 minutes or thereabouts may then have to face something which they find frustrating and unnecessary. I refer to quarantine. Against the background of anarchy that prevails as regards dogs in this country, that could result in problems.
France has a tattooing system as part of its statutory vaccination requirement. Most people pay the fee which
1488
covers the registration. Some do not, but dogs found without the tattoo have only a very short period of time in which to be claimed; otherwise they are disposed of.
Governments in this country have always thought of registration as something bureaucratic, creating vast records and giving large numbers of bureaucrats the power to check on dog ownership. However, the large voluntary membership of registration schemes that already exist shows that there are other reasons for having a scheme. Dogs often stray. Even the most orderly dogs sometimes stray, occasionally over large distances. A registration scheme gives owners a much better chance of being reunited with their dogs. But enough said about dog registration.
All that this simple Bill seeks to achieve is that where decisions are to be made the Government shall consult the dog control and welfare council. Without putting it in perhaps such a dramatic way as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I anticipate that dogs will be of concern to us for various reasons in the near future. It would be an enormous help to the Government, civil servants and all concerned if there were a body of the kind proposed in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, even dealt with the funding of the council in his admirable speech.
All that I would say from these Benches is that we welcome the creation of an expert body, however composed, with government participation and chairmanship, and with the participation of whoever the Government see fit to include. In our view, that would make any future legislation much more simple and effective. Without any feeling of rancour at this season, I feel bound to say that the dangerous dogs legislation, which was hurriedly introduced, proved a spectacular and expensive failure. If the Government had had available to them the kind of advice that such a council could provide when they reacted to the terrible scenes vividly depicted in the press, I am sure that they would have produced legislation other than that which is in place and which will eventually have to be reformed. I hope that the Government will look favourably on what is suggested in the Bill and that, sooner or later, we shall have some order in dog ownership in this country.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is, sadly, something of a rarity. In a nation which is alleged to be composed of animal lovers, he is indeed a true friend of all animals. Unlike too many of those who loudly and publicly profess their concern for animals, the noble Lord has never been selective with his concern or confined his efforts only to those species about which public emotion can be easily stirred or political capital readily made. His concern for the laboratory rat and his efforts to improve animal welfare in spheres about which the public do not wish to know have been as great as for domestic pets or popular campaigns. He has never been afraid, unlike some of those who claim concern for animal welfare, to speak out against the causing of unnecessary suffering to animals in areas where it is politically incorrect to do so—for example, in relation to the ritual slaughter of farm animals. He has never

1489
shirked from exposing cruelty in areas about which the British public would rather not know, such as some of our abattoirs and farms.
Above all, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has never been one for gesture politics. Nothing is easier today than to appeal successfully on almost every animal issue to a proportion of the British public by using sentiment, prejudice and emotions instead of fact, reason and judgment. That is not surprising because our population is now largely urban or suburban. It has been brought up from infancy on a diet of books in which animals think, speak and behave just like humans. Most people, sadly, have had little or no contact with animals in their lives, save perhaps with a domestic pet, and the results are accordingly not always in the interests of the animals themselves.
However, the noble Lord's way has always been to consider the problem with care and reason and in depth, and then to make considered proposals. As a result, he has brought about real improvements in animal welfare—often through his personal efforts—which are and will remain a lasting tribute to him. For all those reasons, when he introduces a Bill which is designed to improve the welfare and conditions not only of the dog population but also of the human population, that Bill surely merits careful consideration by the Government and, in this case, strong support also.
As many of us see it, animal welfare must be taken out of the field of political posturing. Independent study by experts must replace instant legislation resulting from media hysteria or pressure group clamour. If better illustration were needed of what happens when sensational press coverage is allowed to dictate legislation in this area, one need look no further than the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was steam-rollered through Parliament in the face of ill-informed advice in the last Parliament. It will be very interesting to see what benefits the Government will claim have derived from that Act when the noble Lord's Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill is debated in the New Year. I wonder what reduction in dog attacks, if any, will be claimed and what we will be told has been the cost of that legislation.
The benefits, in so far as they are apparent at all, have been to the legal and veterinary professions. Dogs have been impounded and kept at public expense while lengthy legal proceedings are conducted, no doubt often funded by legal aid and attended by expert vets and lawyers arguing expensively and at length over the paternity and antecedents of a hapless canine. The Bill that we are now discussing will, I hope, go some way towards ensuring that such hasty, ill-conceived and inappropriate legislation for what is a real problem will not occur in the future.
Just as the Farm Animal Welfare Council has produced invaluable advice for the Government in relation to legislation and has brought about real improvements, of which there would have been many more if the Government had had the political courage to adopt more of the council's recommendations, so the proposed dog control and welfare council would act first as a prod to Government where legislation is really
1490
needed; secondly, as a sounding board where advice is required and, thirdly, as a brake when the Government might be tempted to introduce loony legislation of the dangerous dogs variety.
There are so many areas of real concern and problems in relation to dogs which the council could usefully address. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, has already referred to the indiscriminate breeding of dogs, especially on some puppy farms where dogs are produced simply as a cash crop often in very poor conditions and with little or no concern given to the suitability of the buyers. The keeping of dogs in unsuitable conditions is bordering on a national disgrace. It must be a matter for widespread education. Far too many large and powerful dogs are kept in unsuitable conditions. Small sporting dogs, which are bred and designed to travel 20 miles or more in a day, are often kept in small, town flats with inadequate exercise and with consequently disastrous effects on their temperament, rendering them noisy, a nuisance, destructive and ultimately dangerous.
The selection by owners of breeds for them to own is often manifestly unsuited to their circumstances; prompted, I suspect, all too often by a desire to project a particular image. There are dogs—some within a close radius of my home—which live their lives on short chains, effectively kept as living burglar alarms. Straying dogs, and an inability to identify their owners, present a constant problem in the countryside, by sheep worrying, of which I have been a sufferer, in relation to road accidents in towns and in the countryside and, worst of all of course, when that results in an attack, especially upon children.
Dog fouling, as anyone who lives in a town or city knows, is a serious problem in many areas. It is clear that current legislation is inadequate. There is a need for a separation of play and recreation areas from dog lavatories, and for irresponsible owners to be made accountable. Then there is the major and growing problem, especially as we come up to Christmas, of lost, abused and unwanted dogs. Where I live, in Stokenchurch in Buckinghamshire, there is a large and excellent dog rescue centre. Every Sunday members of the public take dogs out for exercise in the neighbouring woods. The parade of those animals says more than words about the so-called nation of dog lovers.
There are, of course, the old, greying and ugly mongrels that were no doubt once appealing puppies but are no longer required. There are endless Dobermanns, Alsatians and other guard dogs—image dogs, if I may call them that—which are now no doubt too much for their owners. More than any other breed, there are discarded greyhounds—living examples of man's greed. They are all illustrations of man's failure to carry out his obligations to the animals in his care. We are not, in reality, a nation of dog lovers. If an animal is young, wide-eyed and appealing, we lavish affection upon it, until the time comes when it ceases to interest us and we turn our backs on it.
It takes a true animal lover like my noble friend Lord Houghton, with the tenacity and energy which he continues to display, to come forward with a sensible proposal like this to remind us all of where our duty and

1491
obligations lie, and the way forward in relation to all those problems. I hope that the Government will feel that the proposal deserves their support. I hope that the House, too, will give its support.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is the first occasion upon which I have had the opportunity to discuss dog-related matters with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I know that he has long been a most effective advocate, here and elsewhere, on matters pertaining to the animal kingdom. I am not sure whether I am giving a hostage to fortune when I say that I hope today will perhaps be the first of many occasions upon which we discuss these matters.
The noble Lord criticised some inhabitants of the Home Office over the past 14 years. Perhaps I should tell him at the outset that in me he may have drawn the shortest straw of all. I tread carefully in this debate as I am not keen on dogs, being allergic to them. In close proximity with dogs, I become unwell. I try to keep as clear of them as I possibly can. If it is any consolation to the Lord, cats are worse and rabbits worse still. Therefore to prepare myself for the task of replying to the debate I did some investigations in the Home Office about dogs and dog-related matters as they pertain to government. I proceeded to tread carefully in the field of dog-related matters. I discovered that—in the way only government can do—the Home Office is responsible for the front end of the dog and the Department of the Environment is responsible for the rear end of the dog. So I am more than pleased that I am not talking for the Department of the Environment.
On a more serious note, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said about the ill-matched ownership of many dogs. Even as someone who does not like too close a contact with dogs, I often marvel at the matching pairs I see in the nearby park. In my previous life, when I canvassed—occasionally I still canvass—I was always amazed at the large dogs which seemed to be locked up in small town flats when their natural environment is the countryside. As the noble Baroness said, at this time of year in particular, many people receive dogs as pets. They are cuddly little toys and they do not realise that they are living animals which require a great deal of attention. The giving of that attention is soon transferred from the child to the mother and then, unfortunately in many cases, from the mother to no one at all.
I am aware that twice before—the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned this—he has introduced a Bill identical to the one he moves today. Indeed, as he also said, on the most recent occasion he got the Bill beyond its Third Reading in your Lordships' House. The Government then felt unable to support it.
The Bill envisages the establishment of a statutory council. The council would consist of people who are expert and knowledgeable in dog matters and could advise my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He could turn to it for advice. I know, as we heard this afternoon, the noble Lord uses the FAWC—he has done that today as he has done in the past—which I understand he helped to establish, as his model.
1492
I understand the noble Lord's concerns and his motive in putting forward the idea of a council. I am bound to tell him though that the Government continue to have reservations about the establishment of a statutory council, as the Bill proposes. He has already told me that he will not be too surprised at that answer. I am sorry to disappoint him this close to Christmas, but I am afraid that I have to.
This of course is a Private Member's Bill, and, despite the Government's views which I am expressing, we do not propose to vote against it, as that would be against the tradition of you Lordships' House on Private Member's Bills.
We receive advice on dog issues from many quarters, both solicited and unsolicited. We consult the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and others as necessary to ensure that the Home Office has access to expert opinion on dog-related matters.
Home Office officials met the chairman of the Kennel Club last month, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met on Monday the Director General of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals when., among other things, dog matters were discussed. The Government value the contact which they have with the various organisations, because it enables us to hear, at first hand, a wide variety of expert views and we would not wish either to lose or to deny them the access now afforded to them. We consider that the present arrangements for consultation on these matters operates well. I fear that the establishment of a council, as envisaged in the Bill, may, in its operation, either subsume, or duplicate those consultation arrangements.
I do not expect the noble Lord to be too surprised to hear that the Government's reservations include the need for a statutory council and the amendment to Section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, as proposed by the Bill. I know that the noble Lord has been exploring how effect could be given to the aim of the Bill without the need to establish a statutory council. He mentioned that point. The noble Lord recently met my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and, on behalf of my noble friend I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for keeping the Government informed of developments as to his discussions with animal welfare organisations and others.
I understand that the noble Lord's idea is to set up a charitable trust of a few people to administer a non-statutory council, with the council being funded entirely from outside government. If I heard him aright, he said that he had succeeded in making arrangements for that money to be available.
I admire the diligence with which the noble Lord is pursuing his idea. I can fully understand his desire to have an indication of the degree of backing which the Government would give to his proposal for a non-statutory council. I say to him that the Government cannot commit in advance to giving official backing to a body which is not a statutory body and to one whose reputation is as yet unproven. Recognition would afford it a special status not enjoyed by other organisations in

1493
this field and whose views it might or might not represent. I do not think we could treat the body as necessarily the only authoritative voice over all dog interests or afford it a special status over and above that of the individual organisations with which we are in regular contact already and which I mentioned earlier in my speech. That is not to say, though, that there may not be an argument for a forum through which those organisations that so chose could filter their views.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, was concerned about the effects of the deregulation review on animal welfare legislation. I assure her and the House that the Government's deregulation review is taking due account of animal welfare concerns. The general discussions on deregulation entail consulting all the major welfare groups in this field.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will not be surprised when I say that our policy on registration remains as it has been in the past. We regard it as expensive and bureaucratic and we do not think that in practical terms it would assist in the control of stray dogs. In the context of dangerous dogs, your Lordships will know that in recent incidents the ownership of the dog in question has not in fact been doubted at any time. So registration would add nothing to the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act. In opposing dog registration we brought forward positive measures for the control of dogs in the Environmental Protection Act. Those comprise the seizure and detaining of strays and the duty on district and borough councils to enforce the collar and tag law. The presence of a tag on the dog is the simplest and most effective means of identifying the owner and of dealing with strays.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and all other speakers mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Your Lordships will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House on 23rd November to amend the law relating to dangerous dogs. The Government will, of course, study carefully the content of that Bill and will listen closely to constructive comment on it. It would not be right for me to attempt to pre-empt any discussion which there
1494
might be. But I must say now that the Government do not intend to weaken the protection which is afforded by the Act. Recent tragic events have shown how wrong that would be.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that should he be successful in his efforts to establish a council, or other similar body, the Government will certainly give full consideration to any advice which it may offer, and we would pay proper regard to it. However, I conclude by restating that, for the reasons which I have given, the Government cannot support this Bill.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there is nothing now for me to do except to thank the Minister for his especially well delivered and comprehensive statement. It does what I wanted it to do—it puts on the record where the Government stand on much that we have discussed on past occasions when the Bill has been before the House. For that I am very grateful.
I understand, but will not attempt to debate at this stage, some of the noble Lord's remarks. What is important is that the many supporters of the Bill and those who are gathering for other purposes of defence of animal welfare have established for them a more secure place in commercial and social activity. They want to know what lies before them and what reforms they may wish to embark on. For that I am especially happy. It is on the record now and has been explained to the House very fully and adequately. I hope that out of it all something will come.
In the meantime I shall leave the Bill on the Floor of the House so that if I need to turn to it later I can. But I am not prepared to go into the field of voluntary effort completely without a line of re-entry to the House on the matter. So thank you very much and a very happy Christmas.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before six o'clock.

  MAASTRICHT TREATY: EU FINANCIAL RESOURCES
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: EU FINANCIAL RESOURCES
  NATO
  NATO
  UKRAINE
  UKRAINE
  PRESIDENT YELTSIN: UK POLICY
  PRESIDENT YELTSIN: UK POLICY
  ISRAEL: ARROW ABM SYSTEM
  ISRAEL: ARROW ABM SYSTEM
  ABM TREATY
  ABM TREATY
  RUSSIA: PEACEKEEPING
  RUSSIA: PEACEKEEPING
  BRITISH NUCLEAR WARHEAD TESTS IN NEVADA
  BRITISH NUCLEAR WARHEAD TESTS IN NEVADA
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL: UK FUNDING
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL: UK FUNDING
  FIELD HOSPITAL FOR BOSNIA
  FIELD HOSPITAL FOR BOSNIA
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT: EXPENDITURE REVIEW
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT: EXPENDITURE REVIEW
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893, SECTION 138: EFFECT
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893, SECTION 138: EFFECT
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
  INFORMATION WARFARE: POLICY
  INFORMATION WARFARE: POLICY
  TRIDENT AND ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILES
  TRIDENT AND ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILES
  JAPAN: ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY
  JAPAN: ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY
  REGENT'S PARK BARRACKS: GARAGE CONSTRUCTION
  REGENT'S PARK BARRACKS: GARAGE CONSTRUCTION
  SECOND WORLD WAR END: COMMEMORATION
  SECOND WORLD WAR END: COMMEMORATION
  ETHNIC MONITORING IN THE ARMED FORCES
  ETHNIC MONITORING IN THE ARMED FORCES
  LIVE CATTLE EXPORT RESTRICTIONS
  LIVE CATTLE EXPORT RESTRICTIONS
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: FEE PAYMENTS
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: FEE PAYMENTS
  SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS: EVALUATION
  SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS: EVALUATION
  TEACHER TRAINING
  TEACHER TRAINING
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  JUNIOR DOCTORS IN LONDON HOSPITALS: WORKING HOURS
  JUNIOR DOCTORS IN LONDON HOSPITALS: WORKING HOURS
  PRISONS: CHRISTMAS VISITING ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONS: CHRISTMAS VISITING ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONERS: SECOND MONTHLY ASSISTED VISIT
  PRISONERS: SECOND MONTHLY ASSISTED VISIT
  DRINK/DRUG DRIVING DEATHS: PENALTY STATISTICS
  DRINK/DRUG DRIVING DEATHS: PENALTY STATISTICS
  EARLY MAY BANK HOLIDAY
  EARLY MAY BANK HOLIDAY
  SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICES, SHETLANDS
  SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICES, SHETLANDS
  RED STAR PARCELS
  RED STAR PARCELS
  BR INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES: PRIVATISATION
  BR INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES: PRIVATISATION
  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PERFORMANCE
  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PERFORMANCE
  LIGHT DUES
  LIGHT DUES
  THE MERCHANT FLEET
  THE MERCHANT FLEET
  BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967, SECTION 2
  SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967, SECTION 2
  AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES: CHARGES
  AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES: CHARGES
  ROAD AND TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE 1994–95
  ROAD AND TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE 1994–95
  LINGARABAY, SOUTH HARRIS: EXTRACTION APPLICATION
  LINGARABAY, SOUTH HARRIS: EXTRACTION APPLICATION