Sitting of 20 April 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Environmental Protection
    Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in environmental protection over the past year.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): A full account will be given in the third year report on "This Common Inheritance", which we will publish on 10 May.
    Dr. Fox: In discussing that report, will my right hon. Friend make the strongest possible representations to the French Government over the proposals to extend the shooting season, which will result in the unnecessary and unacceptable slaughter of many British migratory birds? Is my right hon. Friend aware—I hope that he is—that many people in the United Kingdom will find that to be an arrogant and unacceptable proposal, and completely distasteful?
    Mr. Gummer: I have already made it clear to the French Government that any consideration of the proposal to which my hon. Friend has referred must be in the context of there being no change in the present practice. They have assured me that they will take the scientific advice that has so far been given by Ornis, but there is more scientific advice to be obtained. I note that the European Parliament has declined to discuss the matter at this stage. The British Government have taken the clear view that the issue of migratory species is a matter of European Community competence, and we are determined to protect those birds that come to this country.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State's claims that he is protecting the environment look pretty thin when he publishes a 1993 report only in May 1994, when he drops his plans to set up contaminated land registers, when we still have not had before us any legislation on the Environmental Protection Agency and when there are no longer any long-term targets for limiting CO2 emissions. Worst of all, the Government and their friends have tabled more than 200 amendments and new clauses, which are clearly intended to wreck the Energy Conservation Bill being promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Is the Secretary of State aware that that measure would do more for the environment than anything that he is now doing?
    Mr. Gummer: The Liberal party is utterly unable to make any such comment ever since it reneged on its support for proper taxes on energy consumption. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that his position is untenable. We have heard the usual Liberal demand for something for nothing. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in all his other allegations. We are reporting for the third year running on these matters at a later date because of the publication of the report on sustainable development, which has been widely welcomed. Only the Liberal party would make such silly allegations.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the River Severn was severely polluted last weekend. In the light of that experience, will he have a word with the water regulator to ensure, first, that the quality of water is properly monitored and, secondly, that when such pollution occurs, samples are taken and analysed quickly so that the public can be accurately and properly informed of what is going on?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a serious incident. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside was in the area yesterday. There was an immediate inquiry into the matter. The points that my hon. Friend has raised will be taken fully into account. As far as we can see at this stage, the measures to which my hon. Friend referred were taken. The inquiry will establish that. We shall naturally seek to learn as much as possible from the inquiry to ensure that there is no repetition of that incident.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, over the past year, the environmental protection record of local government has been better than that of central Government? The right hon. Gentleman is fond of pouring scorn on Labour local authorities. Why is it that of the 11 local authorities that have been specially invited by the Government to make a presentation on best practice to the Partnerships for Change conference, not one is controlled by the Conservative party? Of the eight district councils selected by the Government as examples of best environmental practice, seven were controlled by the Labour party. Will the right hon. Gentleman now praise the pioneering work of Labour councils on environmental protection?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that up until now we have managed to praise the environmental work of a large number of councils of different political colours, and this is the first time that a party political division has been drawn into the matter. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. The only party in the House that has no right to talk about the environment is the Liberal party because it has reneged on all its willingness to support those matters. The Labour party must remember that I have criticised only the fact that it has the vast majority of the councils which demand the most money for the least services. It costs £131 more to pay the council tax in Labour councils—[Interruption.]—and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is trying to intervene, has had to admit that his figures are phoney—phoney councils, phoney figures, Labour councils.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would my right hon. Friend think that it was making progress in protecting the environment if an application to establish opencast coal operations were granted at Towers Farm in Poynton in my

    869
    constituency, in a most sensitive green belt area right on the edge of Cheshire and on the boundary of Greater Manchester, against the opposition of local residents, the parish council and the borough council and at a time when British Coal is closing coal mines as though there were no tomorrow?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the cause of environmental protection would be helped much if my hon. Friend were to receive an answer in the House of Commons to what is a properly constituted inquiry into the matter, in which the environment will play a major part. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait for the results of that properly constituted inquiry and my decision on it. As to his comments about the coal industry, that is a matter for the coal companies themselves.

    Coal Mines (Water Pollution)
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to protect areas surrounding closed coal mines from the potential pollution of watercourses.
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had concerning mine water pollution; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is considering the detailed allocation of responsibilities in respect of coal mines after privatisation, as between the operators and the Coal Authority.
    Mr. Campbell: Throughout the county of Durham, wildlife is being destroyed and farmers' fields are being flooded. Surely someone must take responsibility for the pollution. I know that the Government want to renege on their responsibility, but is not it time that someone stood up and took the matter in hand?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for —like others of his colleagues—raising that important matter, which we are seeking to address. That is why, following the last Environment Question Time when the matter was raised, I took it upon myself to talk to my colleague the Minister for Energy. At present, if there is a particular cause of pollution, the National Rivers Authority should be spoken to. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind and would like to talk to the NRA, but has been unsuccessful, I should be pleased if he would take the matter up directly with me.
    Mr. Etherington: The Minister will be aware that the National Rivers Authority is of the opinion that the law is somewhat unclear about British Coal's responsibility for pollution. Does he accept that many people are afraid that when private enterprise has the responsibility—if it can be called that—of keeping pollution at bay, the situation might get worse? Can he assure the House that he will take the necessary action to tighten up the legislation and ensure that no additional burden falls on either water ratepayers or council taxpayers in the areas concerned where there is likely to be a diminution of deep mining?
    Mr. Atkins: As I have said, I recognise the concern. The hon. Gentleman is unfair in his attack on private enterprise—in many areas, private enterprise has demonstrated a good record on environmental activity and
    870
    pollution control—but I understand what he is saying. We have recently published a document called "Paying for our Past" and we have invited various people and organisations to comment on what we should do about contamination of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I know that the hon. Gentleman's points, and those of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and the others who share his worries and concerns, will be dealt with when we consider the results of that consultation.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is not it far from the case that the NRA has the responsibilities that the Minister has just suggested that it does? Does the Minister agree with Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the NRA—no raving socialist, I understand—who said recently:
    "There is a legacy of contamination for which no one is currently responsible, no one is prepared or able to pay the necessary clean-up bill, and no one is charged with the running—"
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that he may not quote at Question Time. He may paraphrase, not quote directly.
    Mr. Howarth: Certainly, Madam Speaker. Is not it clear from the comments of Lord Crickhowell that the responsibility that the Minister claims already rests with the NRA simply does not? Will the Minister undertake to the House that when the Environmental Protection Agency legislation comes before the House, he will consider using that opportunity to clear up the confusion? I assure him that, if he does that, he will get co-operation from the Opposition.
    Mr. Atkins: Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence for mine owners to cause or permit the pollution of water courses. There is legislation, but I recognise that there are some questions about exemptions because of the retrospective aspect of the legislation.
    Lord Crickhowell's comments during a debate in the House of Lords the other day are part and parcel of the consultation procedure. His views, as the chairman of the NRA, will be considered as important, along with those of others who respond to the consultation document on contaminated land.

    Council Tax
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the top 10 council taxes and the bottom 10 council taxes.
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): The highest council taxes in descending order have been set by Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Coventry, Langbaurgh, Salford, Bristol, Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.
    The lowest council taxes in ascending order have been set by Westminster, Wellingborough, Wandsworth, the Isles of Scilly, the City of London, Hambleton, Tewkesbury, Rochester, South Cambridgeshire and Ealing.
    Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the success of Ealing in setting a low council tax. Is he aware that in 1986, when I was a member of the Ealing council, it boasted the lowest rates in west London? Is he also aware that 12 months later—following 12 months of

    871
    Labour control—the rates had gone up by 65 per cent? Does not that show that Conservative councils cost people less and Labour councils cost people more? Is he also aware that Westminster schools are so good that they appeal to one Labour Member, who prefers Westminster schools to Lambeth schools?
    Mr. Curry: There is one essential statistic in all of that. It is that Conservative councils cost people less—precisely £131 less across the country.
    Mr. Betts: Is not the Minister using fiddled figures in making comparisons? Does he agree that the only true comparison is that made by using the average rate of council tax? That simply takes into account the amount that a council spends and how many people live in that area. The use of bands is distorted because the different spread of property types and values in an area is reflected in those figures. Does the Minister agree that no one would use that comparison objectively? Is not it only those who would try to use the figures for cheap political advantage who would use bands, rather than another comparison?
    Mr. Curry: For Opposition Members to talk about distorted figures is pretty rich. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted figures which entirely overlooked the fact that the three precepting authorities were Labour. Nothing is more irrelevant than to use the average tax per household, as it depends on the level of banding in that property and on the amount of grant that is given. The lower the banding, the greater the grant, and Labour councils are delegated even more grant. The trouble is that they do not use it very well, and that Is the heart of the argument.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend find it interesting that those authorities in London that receive the highest levels of grant from the Government, such as Lambeth, Haringey, Camden and Islington, also levy the highest council taxes? Is not it even more revealing that those authorities that receive the lowest levels of rate support grant, such as Wandsworth and Westminster, are able to charge the lowest council taxes?
    Mr. Curry: That is exactly right. It might be helpful if I spelt out those standard spending assessment levels, so that we can get the facts right. Tower Hamlets receives £1,481 per capita—that is not a Conservative council—Hackney receives £1,305, and Islington £1,185. Westminster is number four, receiving £1,167, and Wandsworth does not appear in the top 10 at all.
    Mr. Straw: Could the Minister explain why so much money has been stuffed into Wandsworth in non-meansrelated grant? Wandsworth contains 0.5 per cent. of the country's population, but receives 11 per cent.—£44 million—of all non-means-related grant. Could he also explain why, in Westminster, £96 of every £100 of council spending is contributed by central Government, while the council tax payer spends just £4?
    The Minister claims that the average household tax is irrelevant. Can he explain why that measurement was used this time last year in a private Conservative party briefing document, and was also used in a public Department of the Environment official press release the day before the council tax came into force? Is not the truth that it was only when Conservative Ministers discovered that Labour costs
    872
    less that they dropped that measurement? Is not it also true that, while the average council tax is £493 in Conservative areas, it is £453 in Labour areas? Labour costs £40 less.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is an astrologist, not a mathematician. He does not understand the system to begin with. Let me make it clear. Why does Wandsworth receive the grant that it receives? Because its community charge was zero, to the great benefit of its population, the transit relief had to be at a higher level, and because it had the biggest cut in standard spending assessment. That is why it has the damping grant.
    The reason for the proportion of grant that Westminster receives is the fact that it sets a budget below its standard spending assessment. If Westminster set a budget as far above its SSA as Liverpool has, it would have to charge 22 per cent. in its council taxes, which is more than Liverpool charges.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role he foresees for his Department over the next 12 months in sponsoring the construction industry.
    The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The Department will build on the enhanced support that it is giving to the construction industry in order to encourage its success in both home and overseas markets.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the £6 billion worth of exports undertaken by the United Kingdom construction industry during 1992? Is he satisfied that the industry is receiving sufficient support and can he cite any initiatives that would help it to gain a still larger share of the world market?
    Sir George Young: I pay tribute to the construction industry's work in generating some £6 billion in overseas earnings: that shows that there is a demand for British products and skills. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just returned from India—where he led an export drive —clutching a fistful of new orders. I am off to Beirut next week, and to Kazakhstan next month, with the construction industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is off to Chile and Argentina. The Department will do what it can to help British companies to win orders and generate work for British people.
    Mr. Battle: Why do not the Government act now to forge a clear link between housing construction, employment and the health of our economy? As well as encouraging the industry to win contracts in Berlin and Beirut—which we welcome—why not also let local authorities use their £5.5 billion worth of capital receipts from council house sales to get thousands of our 500,000 construction workers back to building and repairing the homes that are desperately needed for rent here in Britain?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not seen the figures that we published yesterday about the construction industry. Construction orders for the latest three months were 14 per cent. up on the previous three months—31 per cent. higher than a year ago. Public sector building orders are 50 per cent. up on 1991. There has been a real about-turn in the construction industry, with the most

    873
    positive forecasts that we have seen for many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rejoice at the better news that is now coming out of the industry.
    Mr. Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Sir Michael Latham is about to produce an important report on the construction industry. May we be assured that the Government will consider it carefully and will provide any legislative time that may be needed to implement it?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend says, our former colleague Sir Michael Latham is carrying out an important study into construction. His interim report was published a few weeks ago and was well received. He hopes to complete his work in July. It is a tribute to his work that the interim report was well received, and certainly the Government and all those in construction who await his final report in July will give it the serious consideration that it rightly merits.

    Green Ministers
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the past year the departmental green Ministers have met together.
    Mr. Atkins: Green Ministers have regular bilateral meetings. The last full meeting took place in October 1993, and the next one will take place in May.
    Mr. Bayley: Do the green Ministers realise that the forest sales programme is eating away at the heart of the national forest? Will they explain how their stated aim of expanding forest cover, as set out in the document "Sustainable Forestry", will be achieved if they allow private investors to buy the public forest instead of planting their own forests? When will the forest review report finally appear?
    Mr. Atkins: That report is currently in front of Ministers and in due course the hon. Gentleman and the House will hear the results of those deliberations.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain what are green Ministers?
    Mr. Atkins: Green Ministers are those Ministers from various Departments who, under the tutelage of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, take various actions in their Departments to ensure that the use of materials, recycling, energy use and other matters are regularly reviewed and that the Government estate benefits in the same way as everyone else.

    Housing (Wolverhampton)
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make extra funds available for housing improvement grant allocations in order to deal effectively with the backlog of housing renovations and repairs in (a) Wolverhampton an (b) other cities and towns.
    Sir George Young: Within their overall resources, local authorities may spend whatever they wish on private house renovation and my Department will reimburse 60 per cent. of their expenditure.
    Mr. Turner: In the current year, Wolverhampton's housing improvement grant allocation has been reduced by just under £4 million. There are thousands of post-war
    874
    properties crying out for improvement, especially new forms of heating. Children in families are cold and the lives of elderly people whose homes need new insulation techniques that ought to be applied to those properties are being affected.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Question.
    Mr. Turner: I am asking for more resources to respond to the real housing needs in Wolverhampton and in many other cities and towns.
    Sir George Young: I recently spent a morning in Wolverhampton in the company of the leader of the council, the Conservative Bill Clark, and I saw at first hand the improvements that the local authority is carrying out to properties in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).
    Mr. Turner: Was the Minister electioneering?
    Sir George Young: Indeed I was, and rightly so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also be electioneering. During my electioneering, I got positive support from those whom I met. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that many of his constituents appreciate the improvements to their properties that are being carried out by the Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton city council.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the people of Wolverhampton understand that socialists always believe that every housing problem can be cured by throwing taxpayers' money at it? The people of Wolverhampton are increasingly buying their own homes, and they are enjoying the current low interest rates, which make it possible for an increasing number of people to make their own housing provision.
    Sir George Young: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for a majority of the people in Wolverhampton when he refers to their aspirations to home ownership—aspirations which are now much more within their reach due to the very low rates of interest. I hope that many people in Wolverhampton will take advantage of the present low interest rates to achieve their ambition and buy property in Wolverhampton. There are many good-quality new schemes being built by builders, offering people homes at competitive prices.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister knows that the Federation of Master Builders agree with towns such as Wolverhampton that they have not enough money to meet their statutory requirement to meet mandatory grants. Will he make additional resources available to Wolverhampton and other local authorities now, or is he going to end the right and entitlement to mandatory grant?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have just completed a review of the improvement grant regime, which considered a number of radical options, one of which would be to enable local authorities to have a more proactive approach and promote more home improvement areas. The Government will announce the conclusion of that consultation exercise later this year.
    Mr. Faber: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are about 801 pre-reinforced concrete homes in my constituency in west Wiltshire, many of which are substandard and some of which are in danger of falling down? Is he further aware of the plans submitted by the

    875
    district council to transfer the entire stock to the private sector for restoration—plans that have so far been blocked by the Treasury? Can he assure me that in his Department, he will give a fair hearing to the district council when it resubmits the plans, so that those people who live in appalling conditions in PRC homes will have a better chance in the future?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend rightly says, it has not proved possible this year to find a place in the large-scale voluntary transfer programme for the properties to which he refers. I very much hope that it will be possible to restructure the proposal of his local authority, so that the transfer of those properties can proceed in 1995–96, and we will certainly do all that we can to facilitate such a transfer.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he plans on energy conservation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Our further measures to encourage energy efficiency are clearly set out in the United Kingdom's climate change programme, in our strategy for sustainable development launched recently by the Prime Minister, and in our response to the Environment Select Committee's report on energy efficiency.
    Mr. Harvey: Can the Minister reassure the House that the decision by the Government and their hon. and right hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches to table more than 200 amendments and new clauses to the Energy Conservation Bill has nothing to do with the desire for the amount of electricity consumed to be maximised before the sale of the remaining 40 per cent. Government stake in the two national power companies? Is there not a direct contradiction between those two Government policies—energy conservation on the one hand and maximising the revenue from those sales on the other?
    Mr. Baldry: Only a Liberal Member of Parliament could dream up such a fantasy. The straightforward fact is that the Bill would impose a statutory duty to compel every local authority to inspect and audit every home in the country, not only their own housing stock, and we believe that that would impose an unnecessary extra regulatory burden on local authorities and unnecessary extra costs on taxpayers.
    Dr. Twinn: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Midland Electricity on its generous gift of £500,000 to Neighbourhood Energy Action in support of its excellent work, supported by the Government, to insulate low-income homes? Will he take the opportunity to encourage other British electricity companies and others in the energy field to give money to NEA?
    Mr. Baldry: I fully support everything that my hon. Friend says. Neighbourhood Energy Action does some excellent work, especially the work that it does with the home energy efficiency scheme. That scheme has been nearly doubled to £75 million. It provides grants to improve the energy efficiency of low-income households and will enable 400,000 homes to be treated in 1994–95. That is an indication of the support that the Government give to energy efficiency.
    Mr. Cecil A. Walker: Can the Minister explain why he is stopping the application of the Energy Conservation Bill to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Baldry: That, I suspect, is one of the matters that the House will wish to consider and debate at some length on Friday.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the primary purposes and benefits of energy conservation is that it reduces the need for energy production and the environmental damage caused by it, especially by such means as opencast mining? As his contribution to that process, how soon will he publish the revised guidelines for MPG3?
    Mr. Baldry: We hope to publish the revised guidelines by the summer.
    Mr. Chris Smith: On this Friday's Energy Conservation Bill, am I right to assume from the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) that the Government are opposed to that measure? Is that why more than 200 amendments have been tabled in an apparently deliberate attempt to sink the Bill through lack of time? Is that why the Government are attempting to change the fundamental principle of the Bill from placing a duty on local authorities to allowing a permission for local authorities, thereby undermining the entire purpose and benefit of the Bill? If the Government engineer the collapse of that measure, will not they be left without a shred of credibility on energy conservation?
    Mr. Baldry: I made clear the Government's approach to the Bill on Second Reading. It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that, in some way, the Bill is a touchstone of the Government's attitude to energy efficiency. Our commitment to energy efficiency is clear and constant. The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office has been increased to more than £100 million this year, which represents an increase of nearly 50 per cent. on last year and a 17-fold increase in real terms since 1979. We have a clear commitment to energy efficiency, but we do not believe in imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on local authorities, which will not necessarily bring further benefit to energy efficiency.

    South West Water
    Mrs. Browning: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss with South West Water the charging policy for water consumers.
    Mr. Atkins: Both the Department and Ofwat have had a number of discussions with South West Water about the importance of keeping price rises to the minimum.
    Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the latest increase this month, there is now grave concern at the ability of those on fixed incomes and pensioners with modest savings in my constituency of Tiverton to find the money to meet this year's bill, let alone the expected increases in future years? When speaking to South West Water, will my hon. Friend examine carefully its contribution to the investment in the clean up of south-west beaches and its exorbitant charging for installing water meters? Will he also make representations to his

    877
    colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that they are aware that financial help will be needed to assist the people of the south-west?
    Mr. Atkins: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend represents, which has been expressed to my right hon. Friend and me by hon. Members from the south-west on numerous occasions. As we all know, there are many beaches in the south-west of England, but fewer people than in the rest of the country to pay for the clean up required, as well as the cost of water. I shall convey my hon. Friend's concerns to my colleagues in the Treasury and to the water companies.
    Ms Corston: Is the Minister aware of the growing consensus against the use of compulsory water metering, which is considered a waste of money that should be spent on repairing our ancient water system, and in favour of using council tax bands to assess water bills?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady's view is not held unanimously, even on her side of the House. Many people feel that metering has a part to play, just as it does in charging for electricity and gas. Given that we are discussing the use of a long-term resource with increasing demands on it, metering seems to be the fairest and simplest way to charge for it. However, I recognise that concerns have been expressed about the possibility of council tax banding. Hon. Members must understand that, were that option to be considered, it could be just as damaging in terms of people's pockets as any of the other options.
    Sir John Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that water prices for the average householder in the south-west have nearly doubled in the past few years and will double again by the end of the decade if something is not done? With the water regulator now beginning his work on preparing the charging formula for July's announcement, does my hon. Friend accept the urgency of getting agreement in Brussels on slowing down the implementation of the EC directive?
    Mr. Atkins: I am aware of the concern, largely because many of my hon. Friends have expressed it to me and the Secretary of State. On the directive on urban waste water treatment, we are doing exactly what he asks and seeking to persuade the Commission and our colleagues within the Union that that matter will cost far more than they expected. They are beginning to understand that. As a result, it may be recognised that it can be spread over a longer period.

    EC Directives
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss the implementing of EC environmental directives.
    Mr. Gummer: The next formal Environment Council will be on 8 and 9 June. The agenda has yet to be determined.
    Ms Quin: Will the Secretary of State be discussing the implementation of EC water quality directives? Will he confirm that it was the Conservative Government who signed the drinking water directive in 1980? Will he give an estimate of the number of jobs that would have been created if the Government had honoured their commitment
    878
    and improved water quality as they said they would? Will the Government also confirm that a green dowry was given to the water companies at the time of privatisation specifically to bring our water quality up to EC standards?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the importance of those standards. I am concerned that we should reach those standards in the most sensible, cost-effective way. There is no doubt that many of the costs associated with reaching those standards are considerable. Some of the legislative measures—not only in the directive, but others—are prescriptive. We want to achieve the standards sensibly. In the post-Maastricht period, it might be more sensible to regard drinking water standards as matters of subsidiarity to a greater extent than they were viewed in the past. It is reasonable to treat them in that way. I do not see why the subject should divide the House.
    Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in being part of Europe if the other European countries do not play by the rules? Will he ensure that, for every European environmental directive, each country embarks on a compliance-cost assessment? That would ensure that every country knew how much the directive would cost before it embarked on it and how much it would cost to enforce it. Britain should not go it alone and follow the directive until every other country has done the same, and there must be cross-border enforcement.
    Mr. Gummer: The manifest advantages of our membership of the European Union are enhanced if we ensure that EU countries undertake a cost-benefit analysis before decisions are made. I want to go one stage further than my hon. Friend suggests—I want the Commission to produce figures in advance of making the proposition in the first place. That would be sensible government—it is what we would expect in this country and certainly what we would expect in the European Union.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: When the Secretary of State meets his European Union counterparts, will he discuss objective 1 funding, which partly covers environmental needs and designates Merseyside as one of the poorest areas in Europe? Will he explain to them why the Government choose to pump millions into rich, Tory-controlled boroughs in the south of England at the expense of areas in the north which, by the Government's own definition, are deprived?
    Mr. Gummer: I will certainly explain to them that the system by which we provide money to different parts of the country is based on an objective system worked out by the largely Labour-controlled council associations. They may have misread a statement by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was special adviser in the Department of the Environment when Labour found that Westminster's need per head was £486.47 and Liverpool's was £326.95. The difference was 49 per cent. in Westminster's favour. While the Conservative Government have been in power, it has been 33 per cent. We can see the truth of the hon. Gentleman's slurs.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend take time when he next meets the European Environment Commissioner to discuss the latest directive proposing to phase out chlorine from industrial activity? Is he aware that chlorine is a basic component of bleach, which every housewife needs to clean the loo and to bleach shirts and

    879
    sheets? Is he aware that chlorine is a basic component of PVC and clingfilm, which every housewife needs to wrap up scraps before putting them in the fridge? Is he aware that Britain has the two largest PVC manufacturers in the world that provide thousands of jobs, which will go if the directive is implemented? There are at least 250 manufacturers of packaging material based on PVC. The directive will create an enormous vacuum and many job losses.
    Mr. Gummer: I find it difficult to agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that those jobs are done only by housewives. I hope that they are done by both sexes in the home. For environmental reasons, we need to look extremely carefully at the use of chlorine. Although it is a most useful chemical, it should be used in a way that is not detrimental to the environment. The Department is determined to ensure that our children's future is put first. Therefore, if it is possible beneficially to restrain the use of chlorine, that is what we shall do.
    Mr. Dafis: Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the EU Environment Commissioner chapter 10 of the White Paper on competitiveness and growth? If he has, does he agree that it shows a new understandmg of economic policy and the fact that economic success and job creation are both compatible with and strengthened by environmental sustainability? Will the Government support the principle of that chapter, which is to shift the burden of taxation away from jobs and people on to the overuse of resources and pollution?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that it is right to accept that environmental protection is a spur to competitiveness and to industrial success, rather than the opposite. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in supporting a major example of putting taxes on the overuse of energy —I refer, of course, to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel.
    I note that the hon. Gentleman's party, like the Liberal Democrats—not to the same extent, but in the same direction—speaks in generalities about these matters, but is never prepared to put its name to the cost of delivering green policies. The Conservative party is prepared to pay the cost and deliver the policies.

    European Policy
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what items of environmental policy he has raised in the past month with the European Commissioner.
    Mr. Atkins: I have discussed a wide range of environmental policy issues with Commissioner Paleokrassas in the past month.
    Mr. Loyden: Next month, the Government will have the opportunity to ban toxic waste from EU countries. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take immediate steps to impose that ban in this country and in all developed countries from next month?
    Mr. Atkins: We have signed the convention, which takes effect on 6 May. Therefore, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must be yes.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that EU environment directives should be better framed and should always be based on the latest scientific evidence?
    880
    Does he further agree that the policy of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties of environment directives being scrutinised—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are here not to discuss Labour and Liberal Democrat policies, but to question the Executive. Would the hon. Gentleman like to rephrase his question?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you for that stricture, Madam Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour and Liberal Democrat policies—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall move on unless the hon. Gentleman asks a proper parliamentary question. I shall give him another chance.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Madam Speaker—third time lucky. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties—[interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We shall move on.
    Mr. Barnes: The Court of Auditors is one of the more effective organs of the European Union. It has produced a number of devastating reports, including one showing that most EU expenditure happens to be counterproductive to environmental matters. The Government's view was defeated in the European Legislation Committee because the Government had dragged their feet over discussing the report. Is the matter now being taken seriously by the Government and the Commission?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes.

    Supermarkets
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of planning applications for new supermarkets are for in-town sites.
    Mr. Gummer: We do not hold the information in that form.
    Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend probably holds some information in some form. Does he recognise that my normally tranquil and serene constituency of Esher is at present up in arms about the villains from Tesco and Sainsbury, who are attempting to put superstores on the edges of communities in my constituency in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton? They would not be out-of-town shopping centres, but shopping centres on the edge of communities which would rip the hearts out of those communities. He has received thousands of letters opposing those developments; will he consider carefully the damage that superstores cause to communities in semi-urban areas?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend would not want me to comment specifically about decisions which I may have to take from a quasi-judicial position, but, in general terms, my view is that we need to take those decisions in the light of the viability of the shopping centres in high streets of small towns and large towns and also in some less urban areas. That is the purpose of PPG 6—the planning guidance on town centres and retail development—and the joint planning guidance on transport—PPG 13—with the Secretary of State for Transport. Putting the two together,

    881
    my hon. Friend should have confidence that we are determined to protect the viability and life of our traditional high-street shopping centres.
    Mr. Hardy: While I do not disagree with the Secretary of State, will he look into the question recently drawn to my notice of applications for developments that are described as warehouses or buildings for leisure pursuits, when the real intention is to develop retail outlets of the sort that he apparently deplores?
    Mr. Gummer: I am determined to ensure that the same planning rules shall be laid upon all comparable developments, and merely calling them something different will not exclude the full planning procedures. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are some who seek to do that; I will seek to make sure that they fail.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware how welcome his recent proposals on out-of-town shopping centres have been in constituencies such as mine, where thriving inner-city, city-centre shopping is of paramount importance to the economy and quality of life of the community? Is he aware that the balance that he is introducing in his proposals is widely welcomed in Chester?
    Mr. Gummer: It is important not only to get the balance corrected, but to raise the standard of the design of the shops when they come back into city centres and the centres of our small towns. That is why I turned down a particular proposal in Ludlow, where the design was not up to the quality of the town centre it sought to enhance.
    Mr. Vaz: May I congratulate the Secretary of State for finally acknowledging that the Labour party policy on out-of-town developments, on which we have been campaigning for years, is the right one? Will he now apologise to the councils that have had their decisions overturned and the developers that now face hundreds of extant planning permissions which, on current completion times, will take years to finish? How does he propose to compensate local communities that have had their green belts ruined, and the local authorities that have seen the destruction of their town centres because of the myopic policies of this Government?
    Mr. Gummer: It is very often the local Labour council that has given the planning permission. That was a pretty rich comment, even for the Labour party. It would be nice if the hon. Gentleman at least could say that after a perfectly reasonable period where the retail revolution was allowed to continue, providing a considerable number of jobs and choices for the people of Britain, we are now saying that the balance should be reverted—in a different direction. That is perfectly reasonable. We are not in any sense resiling from the view that there ought to be a mix, but we need vibrant city centres. We are encouraging that, not only through the planning process, but through the enormous sums of money that we are putting into our city centres in such excellent policies as city challenge and similar ones which were opposed virulently by the Opposition.

    Flora and Fauna
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to protect endangered flora and fauna indigenous to the British Isles from extinction.
    Mr. Atkins: The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides comprehensive statutory protection for endan-gered wild species of flora and fauna and their habitat in Great Britain. Further measures will be introduced shortly to meet legal objectives under the EC habitats directive.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the biodiversity action plan steering group will provide a major opportunity to protect in the United Kingdom endangered species such as the dormouse, red squirrels, otters, pine martens, the lady's slipper orchid and, indeed, strapwort? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that he intends to protect the habitat and species named in the UK Red Data book?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that two of the most endangered species in Britain are Tory councillors and Tory MPs, and that no amount of grant gerrymandering by the Government will save them from near extinction on 5 May and 9 June?
    Mr. Atkins: I wish that there were protection for the loud-voiced bamboozler which is obviously represented by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only enduring way to protect wildlife is to conserve and create habitat? Will he therefore work with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that the habitat scheme is made effective under the new set-aside arrangements?
    Mr. Atkins: As I think the House knows, my hon. Friend has a distinguished record in, and knowledge and understanding of, these matters through his own personal experience. I will certainly give detailed consideration—indeed, I am doing so—to the points that he raises.

    MPG3
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals by private mining companies against refusal to agree opencasting by local authorities he has (a) allowed and (b) rejected since the introduction of the present mineral planning guidance note 3.
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of opencast coal mining.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities on the issue of the draft mineral planning guidance note 3 on coal mining and colliery spoil disposal; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on mineral planning guidance on opencast.
    Mr. Baldry: My Department's records show that the Secretary of State has allowed 30 appeals and dismissed 17. Opencast coal mining can have a serious environmental impact. That is why we have revised the planning guidelines for coal extraction to ensure that they set tough environmental tests for the industry. The consultation period for MPG3 has only just expired. I will place a list of those who responded to the consultation exercise together with a summary of their comments in the Library of the House in due course.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that the data that he has given to me about the results of appeals show that the present mineral planning guidance very much favours mining companies above the interests of local authorities and local communities? In considering the revision that is going on at the moment, will he examine the needs of areas such as Morley—one half of my constituency—which faces six planning applications: three of which have been granted, one of which is pending, and two in which mining companies have shown an interest? Will he accept that there is a cumulative effect upon communities to which they should have a right to object? Does he understand that when the last planning application was given, local people did not want to see it accepted or the appeal granted by the Minister?
    Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the draft new mineral planning guidance, he would have seen that the strong presumption in favour of opencast coal development in MPG3 which did exist is being withdrawn and replaced with a test of environmental acceptability. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that.
    Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that one of the largest opencast sites in the country is located in my constituency? In making the planning application, British Coal said that it was necessary in order to mix the coal from this site with the coal from Lea Hall colliery, and then Lea Hall colliery was closed. British Coal then said, "We need the coal to mix it with the coal from Littleton colliery" and then Littleton colliery was closed down. Is the Minister therefore aware that all that my constituents have left is a big environmentally unacceptable hole in the ground?
    Mr. Baldry: The planning guidelines aim to strike a balance between the economic importance of opencast coal —we should not underestimate the fact that it does have an economic value—and protection of the environment in a way that is fully compatible with the principles of sustainable development. In all these matters, balance is important.
    Mr. Michie: I do not think that any of my colleagues are happy with the replies. The planning guidelines contain a loophole so large that one could put an earthmover through it. There is more than planning at stake. Will the Minister make it clear whether the demise of planning control over opencast mining has something to do with the closure of deep-mined pits?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not listened to either of the answers that I have given. In my role as Minister responsible for planning, I am determined to ensure that the acceptability or otherwise of individual proposals for opencast coal mining depends on the balance
    884
    between environmental impact and economic gain. That balance has to be struck, irrespective of the ownership of the coal or who is involved.
    Mr. O'Brien: Why, having made a decision on the Birch Coppice opencast application on 2 August 1993, did the Minister set it aside on 25 February 1994, thereby blighting thousands of homes in north Warwickshire? When will a further decision be made? Will he now offer an apology to the people of north Warwickshire for the long delay? Is it not the case that, if he had displayed such manifest incompetence in a proper job in the private or public sector, he would long ago have been dismissed?
    Mr. Baldry: That question shows manifest ignorance of the whole planning system. The hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate the fact that all planning decisions are subject to the review of the High Court. Ultimately, it is the High Court which determines whether a planning decision is valid. Although I appreciate the concerns felt by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, he knows, but did not seek to make it clear to the House, that the High Court has still to determine the planning application in the matter to which he referred. I am sure that he will appreciate that I am unable to comment further at the moment.

    Points of Order
    3.31 pm
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Before I hear the point of order, may I say that I am very disappointed that the House did not make the progress that it should have made at Question Time. Questions have been too long and, although there have been one or two very brisk answers from a particular Minister—for which I award him an accolade—answers, too, have often been too long. I hope that things will improve tomorrow and in the coming days.
    Mr. Wigley: You may be aware, Madam Speaker, that following reports in the press in Wales today under the headline "Redwood Plan in Tatters", referring to what is called
    "the humiliating defeat of the Secretary of State's plan which blew a hole through his blueprint for counties in Wales",
    comments have been made by the Welsh Office about the future of the Local Government (Wales) Bill which have not been made in the House. The position is exacerbated by virtue of the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales is not a member of the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill. In these circumstances, would it be possible for the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement in the Chamber on what is going to happen to the Bill, in view of the uncertainty that it is causing for local authorities in Wales?
    Madam Speaker: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but he is clearly referring to decisions, activities and debates that took place in the Standing Committee. I have not so far been informed by the Secretary of State that he is seeking to make a statement to the House.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to what you said, Madam Speaker, about the prolongation of Question Time, would it not be better were we to revert to

    885
    the old custom—and only very few of us here remember it —that nobody bothered to thank you for allowing them to catch your eye? This is a new development. The new calibre, lower-quality Members now think that somehow or other they play to your favour by saying "Thank you." Will you tell them that there is no need for that; you are simply doing your job?
    Madam Speaker: I wish that all hon. Members were as courteous to each other as the hon. Gentleman seems to think that they are to me. They are not always very courteous to me, and I value a little "Thank you" sometimes. I now call Mr. Hain.

Regulators of Privatised Utilities
3.33 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: A big thank you, Madam Speaker.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the accountability and other objectives of the privatised utility regulators.
Without any serious debate, the regulation of the privatised utilities has been hived off to autocratic unaccountable directors general. The invisible hand of Ofman the regulator now guides policy for every light switched on, every bath run and every telephone call made. Regulators are independent and all-powerful, and they have extensive discretion, which has often been exercised in a highly personalised fashion.
Oftel, Ofgas, Ofwat and OFFER cover vital services. Telecommunications, gas water and electricity affect major areas of public policy and every citizen in the land.
However, the regulators were largely afterthoughts. Regulation has evolved in an ad hoc fashion, becoming complex, over-technical, rambling and fundamentally flawed. The main beneficiaries are shareholders, whose dividends have soared—dividends had increased by 85 per cent. for water by 1992, and by a massive 63 per cent. in the first year of electricity privatisation. Industry chiefs have also enjoyed a pay and shares bonanza.
By contrast, job losses in the privatised utilities will soon total a staggering 200,000. The National Consumer Council reports at best a mixed record on prices, with anomalies such as a £9,000 charge for a 4 ft water connection to a residential home in my constituency of Neath.
The right-wing assumption that individual shareholder interest necessarily equates with the public interest is nonsense. Individual shareholder or consumer interests, compartmentalised from each other, do not inevitably aggregate into the general public interest. Indeed, selfishly pursued with the support of the regulator, they often thwart achievement of the general interest in such matters as the ability of strategic national companies to compete in world markets, environmental protection and the preservation of precious natural resources.
In 1993 the electricity regulator—a public servant, not an elected representative—insisted that forcing the electricity generators to maintain existing coal volumes would infringe competition rules. He thereby vetoed an alternative energy policy, which led to the closing of dozens of pits. That public servant's encouragement of the dash for gas for electricity power station base load is depleting North sea oil reserves by more than 15 years' usage, and causing a most inefficient use of a critical fuel. Coal is sentenced to death, while coal imports soar and nuclear power has a £1 billion-plus subsidy.
The driving objective of the regulators to promote competition almost at all costs invites foreign companies to enter the United Kingdom market on advantageous terms, while British companies are barred from reciprocal rights abroad. That is most striking in gas and telecommunications, where American-owned television companies are capturing important local markets. British Telecom cannot enter the United States market on equivalent terms, and is further penalised by being barred from offering broadcast services, such as cable television, over its lines.
888
Britain's industrial interests in that vital area of information technology are being undermined, as BT is forced to concentrate on pigmy competition in its backyard at the expense of international competition, where we are now threatened with an American takeover.
Competition dogma is also tending to force the privatised utilities to concentrate on the most lucrative, fastest growing markets, where competition from new entrants is fiercest, at the expense of low-income communities. That so-called "cherry picking" means that the most profitable users get the cheapest and most sophisticated services. Telecommunications in the City of London is a good example. By contrast, there is social dumping of rural areas and poor inner city areas, where competition is limited or non-existent. Installation charges for telephones are high, well beyond the reach of many people on low incomes.
Water disconnections trebled after privatisation, and charges soared almost as high as executive salaries and perks in the water industry. Low-income households face discrimination, with higher deposits and pre-payment systems.
Privatised British Gas is refusing to extend the main supply an extra few miles to supply villagers—in Neath's Dulais and Swansea valleys, for example. The new competition regime will also increase gas charges for the poor and reduce charges, relatively, for the rich, while gas showrooms are closed.
Competition is not value free, nor is regulation a value-free, non-political exercise carried out in an objective, technical fashion. Each regulator has enormous discretion to determine public policy as he sees fit for his own industry without regard to the knock-on effect. We need to put democratic politics back in charge. The Government should take a small stake in each industry and should appoint a Government director, thus securing considerable influence at minimal cost.
New regulators should be appointed with different objectives to ensure that policies to advance strategic national and social interests always take precedence over promoting domestic competition or shareholders' profits. The regulators should have new performance targets, such as universal tariffs, protection of supplies to the elderly and the disabled, research and development, levels of investment and international competition. Those, rather than competition for its own sake, should be the driving objectives of the regulators.
Democratic accountability could also be improved by establishing a parliamentary Select Committee to scrutinise the utilities, with annual debates on the Floor of the House. A utilities commission should be established to bring the regulators under one roof. That would promote policy consistency between the different regulators housed within it. We do not see that at the moment, especially in gas and electricity.
The commission would be a quasi-judicial body, akin to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but with powers of scrutiny and subpoena similar to those of a Select Committee. It could be governed by a board of representatives from all sectors—from consumers, senior managers, trade unions, shareholders and academics appointed by the Secretary of State.
Enabling the different regulators to share common resources would also bring economies. Each regulator would still be proactive and would still have considerable operational autonomy, but each would be supervised by the

889
commission's board. It would have an advisory role for Government on policy and strategy, and it would help to resolve disputes between the regulators in industries. Such disputes have sometimes dragged on for months.
There must be transparency in the regulators' decisions and the regulators' right to silence should be abolished. They should be required to explain the reasons for their decisions, either publicly or at least privately to the industries concerned. It would also make sense for the regulators to be merged and reorganised so that we had one regulator covering communications; telecommunications and broadcasting are increasingly converging. There should be one regulator for energy, including coal, one regulator for transport and one regulator for water.
The customer is crying out for change and the companies themselves want consistency. Opinion-formers and utilities experts, and even some of the regulators themselves, are casting around for alternatives. The Bill would introduce regulation for the common good.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Roger Berry, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Michael Connarty, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. John Denham, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Ms Kate Hoey, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Rhodri Morgan and Mr. Ken Purchase.

Regulators of Privatised Utilities
  REGULATORS OF PRIVATISED UTILITIES
  Mr. Peter Hain accordingly presented a Bill to reform the accountability and other objectives of the privatised utility regulators: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 June, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    Not amended (in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
      Schedule 4

        PENALTIES FOR STATUTORY CONTRAVENTIONS
        3.43 pm
        The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 236, line 22, leave out '(1)'.
        Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss Government amendment No. 26.
        Sir John Cope: Of the two amendments, amendment No. 26 is the important one. It takes up a point that arose in Committee which is to do with reasonable excuse. The amendment does not go quite as far as amendment No. 58 sought to do in Committee, but it takes up the main point in that it allows a second or subsequent reasonable excuse to count for the purposes of clause 10 and the schedule. Amendment No. 27 is a consequential amendment.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: We welcome the Government's acceptance, in the words of the Paymaster General—at least, almost total acceptance—of the arguments by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) ably moved the amendment, which the Government have partly accepted after a tied vote in Committee.
        The Bill as it stands would have eliminated the opportunity for appellants to plead after one reasonable excuse had expired with a new, second reasonable excuse for the conduct on which they were appealing to commissioners. It seems fully in accordance with natural justice that appellants should have the opportunity to plead a further reasonable excuse in cases of illness and other examples, which were explored in Committee. It makes good sense for appellants and we therefore welcome the Government amendment—if only they took as much notice of all the arguments that we put in Committee.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 10
        EXCEPTIONS TO LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 9
        Amendment made: No. 26, in page 7, line 30, leave out from 'continuation' to end of line 33.—[Sir John Cope.]
      Clause 22

        RECORDS AND RULES OF EVIDENCE
        Amendments made: No. 31, in page 18, line 26, leave out from 'sections' to end of line 27 and insert
        '5 and 6 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988;'.
        No. 32, in page 18, line 28, leave out from 'with' to end of line 31 and insert

        891
        'Schedule 3 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993;'.
        No. 33, in page 18, line 39, leave out subsection (3). —[Sir John Cope.]

      Clause 30

        THE RATE OF DUTY
        Sir John Cope: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 23, line 44, leave out '61 degrees' and insert '81 degrees'.
        In Committee, we had a discussion about the application of the lower rate of air passenger duty, which applies, if I may express it in shorthand, to the European Community. The House will be aware that the hope is that the European Community will have more members at the end of year. The amendment alters the lines of latitude in the Bill and hence, automatically, when the expected new members join the Community, flights to those countries will at that point, though not before, become entitled to the lower rate applicable to the Community.
        The capitals of the three countries concerned, Norway, Sweden and Finland—Austria is not affected by the amendment as it is already within the lines of latitude and longitude laid down—are all within the existing area. However, some northerly latitudes of areas in those countries do not fall within the lines but will be automatically included as a result of the amendment.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman describe to the House the area which will be delineated by the new line of 81 deg north?
        Sir John Cope: To all intents and purposes, the new line goes right up to the Arctic. If the hon. Gentleman looks at a map, he will see that it goes very far north and therefore takes in all the northerly parts of the three countries that I mentioned.
        We had some discussion as result of an intervention in Committee by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the Faeroe Islands. It would also come into the definition because it falls within the new lines of latitude, as it would have done if we had accepted the right hon. Gentleman's amendment in Committee.
        Mr. James Wallace: The amendment is welcome, and its significance should not be lost. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tabled an amendment, which in retrospect seems modest, to increase the latitude from 61 deg to 63 deg. Instead of an increase of 2 deg, we have had a tenfold improvement. It is a concession that I do not think that the Government have ever given the Liberal Democrats before. I hope that it is a harbinger of good for the future.
        Looking at a limited map, the new line takes us into the realms of Franz Josef Land. It would be interesting if the Paymaster General would tell us how many flights there are from the United Kingdom to Franz Josef Land, to which the new concession will apply.
        Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Would it not be more sensible to confine these areas in terms of the status of the countries concerned rather than the rather difficult geographical approach that the Government have adopted? One of the four applicants to the European Union may well decide not to join. If that happens, we shall be left with this
        892
        curious geographical description instead of referring to countries according to whether they are members of the European Union, or perhaps the European economic area. The provision would be clearer and far more sensible if it were defined in those terms.
        Mr. Nigel Forman: I shall make a brief intervention in the form of a question. Does the definition include the whole of Norwegian territory up to and beyond the Arctic circle? We very much hope that Norway and the other countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned will come into the European Union. Does the definition include such exotic places as Spitzbergen and Svalbard?
        Mr. Andrew Smith: I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). It would be more sensible if the Government had defined these areas in terms of the status of the states rather than by lines of longitude and latitude. Apart from anything else, such a definition would have given us great scope for successive amendments in Committee had the circumstances been such that we felt that we needed to engage in prolonged discussion. Serious points were made, however, about the status of parts of the European Community. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, it is pertinent to ask whether the whole of Spitzbergen falls within the defined area.
        The Paymaster General claims that all becomes clear when we study an atlas. I made several forays to the Library to find an atlas that was not distorted—it must be remembered that the area in question is at the top of most projections—to find exactly where the line fell. The definition appears to include Spitzbergen. It would be helpful to have the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that that is so.
        I cannot help feeling that it would have been more sensible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said, to define in terms of the status of the relevant states, not least because in due course, as the European Union expands, it will be necessary for the Government at some stage further to amend the provision. When that happens, they may wish that they had adopted a more sensible course at this stage. As has been said, however, the extension is in itself welcome.
        Sir John Cope: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) said that we should have defined by status. In fact, the primary distinction is by status. Latitude and longitude is a subsidiary or secondary delineation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recalls our discussions in Committee. It was explained at that stage that some of the French overseas territories, without the definition that we have adopted, would be included in the status decision. They are a long way away from the area we are discussing and in anyone's book long-haul flights are needed to reach them. We thought it right, therefore, that they should not fall within the reduced rate.
        I think I am right in saying that all the places mentioned during the debate fall between the latitude and longitude described in the amendment.
        Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman referred to French overseas territories. As I understand French constitutional law, France regards such territories as integral parts of what they define as France. In effect, are not the Government seeking to determine for the French what will

        893
        be within the European Union and what will be without it? If the same argument were advanced by a French Government in respect of what the United Kingdom was defined as constitutionally, would not the Paymaster General and his colleagues object to such an approach?
        Sir John Cope: To a degree, we had this discussion in Committee. My answer has not changed. I cannot speculate about what a French Government's attitude would be in such a highly hypothetical situation. There are not any such departments, if that is the right word. We have been told that constitutionally we are entirely in order in bringing in the definition. The definition seems to be wise from the point of view of this particular duty.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 38

        ACCOUNTING FOR AND PAYMENT OF DUTY
        Sir John Cope: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 28, line 28, leave out from beginning to 'at' in line 29 and insert—
        'to make returns in respect of duty—

        (i) by reference to such periods as may be prescribed or as may be allowed by the Commissioners, in relation to a particular operator, in accordance with regulations, and

        (ii)'.

        Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss Government amendment No. 30.
        Sir John Cope: The amendment relates to returns under the air passenger duty, and has two purposes. It removes doubt about the original wording of the Bill, and allows the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make regulations to require aircraft operators to make returns for accounting periods where no duty is due. There is only a doubt but, nevertheless, it is wise to remove it.
        The point about a nil return is that it can be less trouble both to the airline operator—if it happens to have a period in which there is no duty—and to Customs and Excise because it will be saved the trouble of wondering where a return has got to, which it was otherwise expecting. It will save Customs and Excise from having to chase the airline operator, and the airline operator having then to confirm back again. It will be more convenient if nil returns are provided for. There was always the intention to do that but, as I said, there has been some doubt about the original wording of the Bill which the amendment clears up.
        The second aim of the amendment is to allow Customs and Excise to have flexibility over the accounting periods for returns in order to help the airline industry. The standard accounting period ends on the last day of each month, and that will be prescribed in the regulations. Undoubtedly, there will be some aircraft operators who run an accounting system that ends on a different day of the month. It would be convenient to allow Customs and Excise to accept a different accounting period of that sort and, indeed, that is what the second part of the amendment does.
        Mr. Wallace: We certainly have no intention of opposing the amendment, but we shall make some observations about it. The amendment has been presented
        894
        to the House on the justification that it will be convenient for aircraft operators, and especially Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
        It is a matter for comment that, while the Government are going out of their way to provide for the convenience of Customs and Excise and airline operators, no concession has been given at any stage for the convenience of those who live in remote island communities and who will be penalised by the measure. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were made in Committee—they were made in Committee on the Floor of the House and upstairs—and to the Minister.
        With regard to the convenience of airline operators, the Minister introduced a new clause to facilitate, as it were, not a guess but a detailed passenger-by-passenger calculation as a means of calculating the rough sum which would be allowed. I know that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) asked whether that might take account of journeys that either begin or end in our island communities.
        The Minister is well aware of the importance of the issue to many communities where an airline is an essential service, rather than a form of convenience or a luxury. I therefore hope, even at this late stage, that the Minister is prepared to say something which might give reassurance. He suggested in Committee that the matter might be better dealt with by a subsidy through the Scottish Office than by making further exemptions to the tax which we are now debating. As that subsidy, under the Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Act 1980, requires the consent of the Treasury, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will state what level of consent the Treasury is prepared to make in this case.
        4 pm
        Sir Peter Fry: The amendment, and the clause to which it relates, is concerned with the accounting for and payment of the air passenger duty. I find the amendment insufficient and inadequate because it expects the aircraft operators—in other words, the airlines —to enter into the expense of keeping accounts and making returns which most other companies do not have to do.
        This part of the Bill imposes upon airlines a duty which they cannot avoid, yet it takes no account whatsoever of the special position of airlines. I understand that the duty is intended entirely to be extra revenue for the Treasury, yet it does not in any way take into account the peculiar position of airlines, particularly with regard to the additional expenses for security which they have at the moment.
        I will not go into great detail, you will be delighted to know, Madam Speaker. It is estimated that the six main airports in this country will have to pay about £134 million to improve the searching of hold baggage. If we add to that the necessary research and development, the figure comes to about £200 million a year.
        It may be of interest to my right hon. Friend that in 1989, when the Transport Select Committee looked at whether there should be a special duty on airlines, the airline operators asked for a special security tax so that they would be assisted in the essential job of protecting people who fly within and from this country. The Select Committee agreed entirely with the airline operators. The

        895
        Committee pointed out that previously there had been a tax similar to the one which the Government are now proposing, but it was related purely to security purposes.
        At that time, the Department of Transport disagreed. It said, first, that there was no shortage of money to cover the problem of airport security and, secondly, that it would be far too expensive to collect such a charge. That view seems hollow today. We now appear to be expecting airlines to pay for security without any assistance from the new duty at a time when most airlines have been losing money throughout the world. Yet we are expecting them to invest more and more in the means of protecting the travelling public. The objection that it would be impossible or too expensive to collect such a tax has now been totally blown away by the Government's proposals in the Bill.
        The Government have lost a great opportunity. They could have brought about a situation whereby part of the tax or duty, or a slight addition to it, could have covered the enormous cost of protecting our citizens and those of other countries who fly to and from the United Kingdom. It is estimated that only £2 would cover that.
        I believe that the duty would have been better accepted by the travelling public if they felt that some of the money was going to protect them as they fly around the world. It is a lost opportunity, but I hope that the Government will not close their minds totally to looking at the increased cost of security in airports and on aircraft which fly from here. They should not just regard the duty as another way of squeezing more taxation out of the British public. If they did consider the costs, they would find that the measure would be far more acceptable than it has been until now.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made some forceful and relevant points, but I fear that he will be disappointed if he expects the Government to do other than simply squeeze every penny that they can out of this measure to make up the massive fiscal deficit—albeit a deficit of £46 billion now, rather than the £50 billion that they forecast—that has resulted directly from their own economic incompetence.
        We, too, will pay close attention to what the Government say and do in the future about airline and airport security. We remain very concerned about the impact of the duty on ordinary travellers—especially those travelling to the islands, to whom the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred. As he acknowledged, my hon. Friends—notably the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—have fought long and hard alongside him for the interests of islanders in this context. The Government's response, however, has been wholly inadequate and insensitive to the needs of, in particular, communities that depend on air services and the lifeline that they provide.
        I understand that it is convenient for Customs and Excise for operators to be required to submit nil returns, perhaps year after year; but it is stretching the truth to suggest that it would be convenient for operators as well. The Government keep on about deregulation and the action that they are taking to remove burdens from business, but requiring firms to submit a succession of nil returns does not strike me as winning the battle against unnecessary bureaucracy.
        There is some benefit in making accounting periods flexible. It clearly makes sense to ensure the closest possible correspondence between the periods used for firms' own accounting purposes and those that are
        896
        acceptable for the purposes of Customs and Excise. None the less, this is still a bad tax that has been badly introduced, and we fear that it will have damaging effects, especially in the islands.
        Sir John Cope: It is not a question of nil returns year after year, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) suggested. Our amendment is intended to deal only with cases in which there are occasional nil returns from an airline which would normally provide ordinary returns and, indeed, pay the duty.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: Is the Paymaster General saying that, after a certain number of nil returns, an operator would no longer be obliged to make returns?
        Sir John Cope: If the operator is not liable for the duty, he will fall out of the registration requirements altogether, under clause 33.
        Some airlines operate for only part of the year. The amendment would enable Customs and Excise to make a regulation allowing operators which did not expect to pay duty for a number of successive months, on request, to submit a single return covering the period concerned.
        The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) ingeniously used the amendment to refer to discussions that we have had before about the highlands and islands, and in particular to the question of subsidies, which we have also mentioned before. As he is doubtless aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced increased funds for Western Isles council, so that it can increase the subsidy to the airline that operates on the inter-island route within the Western Isles. He would not have been able to do that without Treasury approval. It will mean that prices can be reduced, so that the passenger will pay no more as a result of the air passenger duty. As for the future, I can only say that we shall consider any suggestions that are made.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred to the expenses involved in airport and airline security. I understand his views, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget speech, we are engaged in what is essentially a revenue-raising operation. As he knows, we have always done our best to avoid hypothecation of revenue to particular items of expenditure. While I have some sympathy for what he said, I cannot go along with his suggestion. As has been made clear from the start, it is a revenue-raising duty and that is the basis on which we recommend it.
        Mr. Wallace: What the Minister says about the Western Isles covers only internal flights and brings them into line with Orkney and Shetland, where internal flights are already covered by the exemption related to aircraft size. In Committee, the Minister raised the issue of subsidy and returned with that as a possible solution, but that was in the context of flights from the Scottish mainland to the islands. Is the Treasury willing to grant consent to the Secretary of State for Scotland to allow subsidy under the Act to which I have referred for mainland-island flights?
        Sir John Cope: I am happy to repeat that we will look at suggestions. However, I will not commit myself or the Government in advance to suggestions that have not, as far as I am aware, yet been put to us—or not to me at any rate.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 43
        INTERPRETATION
        Amendment made: No. 30, in page 30, line 42, after 'prescribed', insert 'or allowed'.
      Clause 54

        ACCOUNTING FOR TAX AND TIME FOR PAYMENT
        Sir John Cope: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 35, line 14, leave out
        'account for tax by making'
        and insert 'make'.
        We now move to the insurance premium tax and to a point that is similar to what was covered in one of the amendments in the previous group. It covers the point about nil returns. As I said about the previous amendment, we believe that nil returns for a month or occasional periods could result in time being wasted not only by Customs and Excise in checking whether a return should have been submitted, but by the insurers involved who might receive requests from Customs and Excise and control visits to verify the reason for the absence of a return even though it would have been a nil return. It makes it clear that Customs and Excise regulations can require a nil return from an insurance company which in a particular period has nothing to return.
        Mr. Alistair Darling: I understand the Paymaster General's point. It is ironic that, although the Government claim that they want to reduce red tape imposed on industry, the requirement for a nil return will be expensive if only because companies have to check whether such a return is appropriate. Obviously, we do not oppose the amendment, but, as we said in Committee, the cost of collecting and implementing the tax will be substantial and the tax will have to be met by the people who pay the premiums—members of the public. The Government should not try to give the impression that the cost of implementing the tax will be minimal because it will be substantial. In time, it may bear quite heavily on the industry itself.
        Sir John Cope: As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have done our best to design the mechanics of the tax and its operation in such a way as to minimise the burdens as far as possible.
        There is another aspect to the amendment which I should have mentioned earlier. Some insurers are likely to have accounting periods in which no tax is due, but some are likely to have occasional accounting periods in which their tax credit claimed in respect of refunded premiums exceeds their tax liabilities in that period. Without an amendment of this kind, they would be unable to claim the balance of the money due to them. That is a further recommendation for the amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 59

        REVIEW OF COMMISSIONERS' DECISIONS
        Sir John Cope: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 41, line 23, at end insert—
        '(da) any refusal of an application under section 63 below;'.
        In Committee we tabled an amendment to permit the group registration of insurance companies that were in
        898
        groups. The amendment allows review or appeal of decisions by Customs and Excise on group registration. I commend it to the House.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Schedule 7
        INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
        Amendment made: No. 34, in page 260, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (7).—[Sir John Cope.]
      Clause 68

        SPECIAL ACCOUNTING SCHEMES
        4.15 pm
        Sir John Cope: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 52, line 9, at end insert—
        `( ) The reference in subsection (3)(a) above to a premium under a taxable insurance contract includes a reference to anything that, although not actually received by or on behalf of the insurer, would be such a premium if it were so received.'.
        Those hon. Members who served on the Committee and those people who have read the Committee proceedings will recall that we have introduced an arrangement for a special accounting scheme which allows the insurance premium tax to be accounted for when the premium is written rather than when the premium is received by the insurer or by an agent on his behalf. The amendment enables the date of the writing of a premium to be the tax point if that happens before the premium is received.
        In the explanation that I gave in Committee of what was then new clause 15, about the advantages and disadvantages to an insurance company of having a premium written arrangement, that was assumed, but the amendment confirms that it will be possible for the regulations to make such an arrangement. It would be confusing to an insurance company to have a written premium or cash, whichever was the later, in the case of a specific transaction. It is obviously better for the company to go wholly on to the written premium basis from every point of view. Without the amendment, that might not be possible. It clears up a doubt.
        Mr. Darling: This is technical stuff, but it is important. I understand the Paymaster General's argument. Of course all members of the Committee welcomed the Government's agreement to allow the tax to be discharged on the basis of the date on which premiums were written.
        However, if I read amendment No. 38 correctly, it could also cover a situation in which tax would be payable whether or not the premium was ever received. I simply want to check with the Paymaster General whether that is intended. As I understand it, the tax point is the date on which the premium is written, but the phrasing of the amendment suggests that if the premium is written but no cash is ever received, none the less tax would be payable on the unpaid premium. Am I right in assuming that?
        Sir John Cope: No; I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. If tax is accounted for on a premium written basis and premium is not received by the insurer or on his behalf, the insurer can claim credit for the tax when he makes the adjusting entry to cancel the premium from his books, and it then comes off his insurance premium tax,

        899
        for that accounting period. It may be a later accounting period; in some cases it will be in the same accounting period; but he does not eventually suffer the tax.
        Mr. Darling: Just to be sure, it means that the tax is payable at the tax point, if at a later stage, rather similar to the case in which VAT is not recovered—a credit can then be claimed by the company if it turns out that it has to write off the premium.
        Sir John Cope: That is correct.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 70

        INTERPRETATION: TAXABLE INSURANCE CONTRACTS
        Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 52, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 on page 53 and insert
        'A taxable insurance contract is any insurance contract that may be prescribed.'.
        Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 40, in page 52, line 44, at end insert—
        '(ba) the contract relates only to a motor vehicle where the conditions mentioned in subsection (2A) below are satisfied;'.
        No. 41, in page 53, line 22, at end insert—

        '(2A) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(ba) above are that—

        (a) the vehicle is used, or intended for use, by a handicapped person in receipt of a disability living allowance by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component or of a mobility supplement,

        (b) the insured lets such vehicles on hire to such persons in the course of a business consisting predominantly of the provision of motor vehicles to such persons, and

        (c) the insured does not in the course of the business let such vehicles on hire to such persons on terms other than qualifying terms.

        (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(c) above a vehicle is let on qualifying terms to a person (the lessee) if the consideration for the letting consists wholly or partly of sums paid to the insured by—

        (a) the Department of Social Security,

        (b) the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, or

        (c) the Ministry of Defence,

        on behalf of the lessee in respect of the disability living allowance or mobility supplement to which the lessee is entitled.'.

        No. 48, in page 53, line 22, at end insert—
        '(1) the contract is Creditor Insurance, being a contract which provides specified benefits to protect income or financial commitments in the event of persons becoming incapacitated in consequence of sustaining injury as a result of an accident or sickness or infirmity or becoming unemployed.'.
        No. 42, in page 53, line 41, at end insert—
        '(7A) For the purposes of this section—

        (a) "handicapped" means chronically sick or disabled;

        (b) "disability living allowance" means a disability living allowance within the meaning of section 71 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or section 71 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;

        (c) "mobility supplement" means a mobility supplement within the meaning of article 26A of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, article 25A of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, article 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Exemption from Vehicles Excise Duty) Order 1985 or article 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Exemption from Vehicles Excise Duty) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.'.

        Mr. Darling: In Committee, we had quite a long debate on what constituted a taxable insurance contract, and it was the Opposition's view, and I think the view of one or two Conservative Members, that the Government should specify what an insurance contract was. The Paymaster General will recall that we cited the example of an Automobile Association or Royal Automobile Club premium, where the premium payable covered not only insurance services but the receipt of maps and other benefits. Equally, we discussed the case of someone buying a car who might receive a warranty on certain parts of that car, if not the car itself, and the question arose whether a warranty was a contract of insurance.
        The Government's position, as I understand it, is that, although they could not describe an insurance contract, rather like an elephant, they knew one when they saw one. I do not want to misrepresent the Government's position, but, as I understand it, that is what it is. The Paymaster General said a number of times that, although a contract of insurance was defined nowhere, it was well settled. He said that he wanted to rely
        "on definitions that are tried and trusted"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 March 1994; c. 570.]
        Given that the tax is being levied at 2.5 per cent., I am prepared to accept that at this stage there is unlikely to be widespread avoidance or evasion of it. But many people believe that 2.5 per cent. is simply the start and that successive Chancellors may seek to increase it. Many people may then try to avoid the tax by the granting of warranties rather than contracts of insurance.
        As I said in Committee, we could rely on clause 51, which makes it clear that the only person who can charge insurance is the insurer, and an insurer is defined in the Insurance Companies Act 1982. So the Government may be able to meet our objection by saying that the problem would not arise because insurance premium tax is payable by an insurer under clause 51.
        I do not expect the Government to accept the amendment, which has been tabled simply to put down a marker for the future that the Government should define a contract of insurance. It is not just us who say that. Various professional bodies as well as people in the industry have suggested that it might be useful if, in a future Finance Bill, the Government were to spell out the meaning of a contract of insurance. It is not fanciful to think that, in future, individuals may want to get round paying motor insurance —for example, by covering through warranty certain parts of a car and even, ultimately, the theft of a car.
        This probing amendment simply puts down a marker for the future. If, as I suspect, the Minister urges the House to reject it, I hope that he will undertake to consider the matter and table an amendment in a future Finance Bill or some other appropriate Bill.
        It may be appropriate to say a word about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). I understand his intention to exempt certain vehicles used by handicapped people. His interest in the matter is well known and I appreciate what he is trying to do. I imagine that he, too, suspects that insurance premium tax will not remain at 2.5 per cent. and is concerned that disabled people, who are already hard pressed, will face increasing bills as a result of insurance premium tax. I doubt whether he will have much joy with the Government, although he may know something that I do not know, but we wish him all the best in moving his amendments.
        Sir John Hannam: Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) seek to exempt from the new insurance premium tax a specific and important group of disabled drivers who lease their adapted vehicles through the excellent charity, Motability.
        I need not remind hon. Members of the importance of the Motability organisation. Most of us have, at some time, taken part in ceremonies to hand over the keys of vehicles provided by Motability to happy disabled recipients.
        Originally, the Government provided the much-criticised invalid trike to disabled drivers. That was withdrawn in 1976 and the mobility allowance was introduced. Motability was set up as a charitable organisation—it is now a royal charity—to help those in receipt of mobility allowance to obtain vehicles of their own to replace the trikes.
        Four group schemes are run by Motability: first, for those who lease a new car from Motability; secondly, for those who buy a new vehicle on hire purchase; thirdly, for those who buy a used car on hire purchase; and, fourthly, for those who buy a wheelchair on hire purchase. Those with hire purchase agreements make their own insurance arrangements for their vehicles. But about 160,000 disabled drivers who lease cars are covered by Motability's block insurance policy.
        The cost of the leasing and the vehicle insurance is covered by the mobility component of the allowance paid by the Government—the disability living allowance. It would be extremely hard for that group of disabled drivers to pay for new insurance taxes. Therefore, Motability is seeking to work out with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General some way of exempting that group from the tax. The amendment will achieve that.
        In addition to that group of 160,000, there is a small category of 1,500 severely disabled drivers who, although they purchase their vehicles through the Motability hire purchase scheme, are so severely handicapped that their cars need substantial and expensive adaptations. Their vehicles are often larger and non-standard. We often see the vans and trucks that are adapted for them.
        The distinct group of about 1,500 severely disabled drivers is catered for by Motability, through a special Motability equipment fund, which provides special grants to assist with the high cost of adaptation. Motability is desperately anxious that the needs of that small group should be exempted from the tax. It has every hope that my right hon. Friend can find a way of achieving that. Special Treasury arrangements would be needed to ring-fence the group. Motability intend to assist by rearranging that category of insurance under its own banner to help facilitate the ring-fence provision.
        I thank Lord Sterling and Treasury Ministers for the help that they have given Motability over this serious problem. I hope that the amendments will be accepted by my right hon. Friend.
        Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am pleased to support the amendments of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). We all come across numerous constituents who depend on vehicles that have been provided under the Motability scheme. Over the past week I have been dealing with the case of a considerably disabled constituent. The significant costs of adaptation involved in that case are relevant to the comments of the hon. Member for Exeter.
        902
        Often the cost of a disability is compounded by the disabled person's mobility requirements. Any increase in charges that might arise as a result of the provisions in this year's Finance Bill and which had an adverse effect on that group of people would be highly regrettable. It would hit people who cannot afford to pay. The Government would be under significant pressure to increase the level of mobility allowance payable under the disability living allowance scheme to compensate. If they did so, they would encounter problems about where to draw the line.
        It would be simpler and more straightforward for the Government to accept the amendments or table amendments of their own exempting people who would be hit by the tax. We could all give examples that would graphically bring home the needs of people for mobility and their dependence on the Motability scheme. Motability faces increasing costs, and those who depend on the scheme may be unable to obtain everything that they want due to the cost. Every additional £1 of pressure is unwanted and should be avoided.
        No doubt the Minister will have sympathy with that category of people, and I hope that he will find it possible to help them. The measure will have only a limited effect on the revenue raised by the Treasury. I imagine that it will be a relatively small amount relative to the global sums that the Treasury wants to raise through the tax changes. I hope that the Minister will be able to find a way of accepting the amendments or come forward with another positive proposal that has the same objective. I am pleased to support the amendments of the hon. Member for Exeter.
        4.30 pm
        Mr. Edward Leigh: I declare an interest as I am a consultant to Pinnacle Insurance plc. My amendment is tabled to clause 70(2), which lists the types of insurance cover that are exempt from insurance premium tax. I wish to add a further exemption to the list—creditor insurance.
        Creditor insurance is designed to protect income and repayment commitments such as mortgages, loans and credit cards against death, disability and unemployment. For example, if an individual purchased a car using a loan, the credit insurance policy would make the monthly loan repayments for him if he became unemployed or was disabled as a result of an accident or sickness. In the event of death, the loan would be repaid. Similarly, under a mortgage creditor policy the mortgage payments would be made by the policy if the borrower became unemployed or disabled.
        The benefit of that sort of insurance is that it prevents people from falling into arrears on mortgages, loans and other financial commitments, thus protecting a family's income stream. That has a knock-on effect in reducing the need to repossess houses or property as people with creditor insurance are less likely to default on their payments. It also reduces reliance on the state to pay the mortgage for them. The safety net of creditor insurance allows consumers to embark upon major purchases with confidence because, if they are unlucky enough to be made redundant or to have a serious accident or illness, the creditor policy will ensure that they can carry on making their payments.
        Following the consumer boom and the recession, creditor insurance will help consumers to overcome their reluctance to make a major purchase. It will also boost the

        903
        housing market and will be generally helpful to the economy. Consumers who do not take out such insurance will have to rely on their savings or fall back on the state if they become unemployed or disabled. Creditor insurance allows purchasers to maintain their savings and investment programmes and not to have to draw on them in unfortunate circumstances.
        Why do I believe that creditor insurance should be exempt from insurance premium tax? IPT is a tax on general insurance policies, but life insurance policies are exempt. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said that IPT should apply at a low rate over a wide base, with few exemptions. To exempt creditor insurance would not set a precedent for other exemptions, as this is a unique situation. The exemption would clarify, not confuse.
        There are a number of social and economic reasons for exempting creditor insurance from IPT. First, it should be exempt because it is really life business. Before the first EC insurance directive, most creditor business in the United Kingdom was classified as life business. It was transferred to general insurance only because of the need to comply with the directive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has already exempted life insurance from IPT. It is just a quirk—nothing less—of insurance classification that creditor insurance is not already exempt.
        Unlike other general insurances of possessions and property, creditor insurance is insurance of the person. It can include a combination of life, accident, sickness and unemployment cover. The life element is already exempt from IPT. Furthermore, some of the accident and sickness cover will be written in the long-term fund—for example, policies in excess of five years—and is then cover classified as permanent health insurance. The remaining accident, sickness and unemployment cover is classified as general business and therefore subject to IPT.
        As creditor insurance is a composite product, it is ridiculous to have to split the various elements. I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's concern that special exemptions produce borderline cases and confusion. I know that the Treasury always wishes to avoid that. However, I understand that creditor insurance is the only significant insurance product that spans both life and general classes. It is the only wholly UK product where premiums will need to be apportioned between exempt and non-exempt risks.
        The Government have been concerned with the practical issues arising from the implementation of IPT and they have tabled various useful amendments to deal with practical problems. However, the anomaly to which I refer still exists. Making creditor insurance exempt will be clear cut and rather than create confusion it will alleviate it.
        Secondly, creditor insurance should be exempt from insurance premium tax because the playing field will not be level throughout the union. Other European Union countries treat accident and sickness cover as life business for premium tax purposes. In Belgium, for example, that element of general cover would be treated as complementary cover if written with an associated life contract, and would not be subject to premium tax. Hence, what is treated as life business for premium tax purposes differs from country to country, despite the harmonisation rules. That could create major problems in future.
        Thirdly, creditor insurance should be exempt from IPT because the policy benefits are already taxed. Accident and sickness benefits can be captured for taxation under the rules relating to permanent health insurance.
        904
        Fourthly, creditor insurance should be exempt from IPT because the playing field will not be level between banks, building societies and insurance companies, and the cover offered could well become self-insured by credit institutions such as banks and building societies.
        The cost of providing a waiver of payments in the event of the disability or redundancy of a customer could be met by increasing the interest rate charged to the customer. For example, a typical creditor product providing disability and redundancy cover could be offered by adding an extra 1 per cent. to the interest rate charged to the customer, so a bank normally charging 8 per cent. could provide a payment waiver by charging 9 per cent. instead. As it is a waiver of payments and not an insurance contract, IPT would not be payable, so banks providing such cover would have a price advantage over insurance companies of, currently, 2.5 per cent. of the gross cost. The advantage may appear to be small, but it is roughly equivalent to the profit margin operated by insurers under creditor business.
        If the tax rate increases in future—everyone suspects that that is almost certain—the advantage will become more significant, so an unfair advantage is now being given to banks and building societies over insurance companies.
        A similar position applies to surety bonds, which when offered by banks and building societies are not insurance. Ministerial confirmation has been given that surety bonds and similar contracts of guarantee written under general class 15(b) are not insurance contracts for the purposes of IPT.
        It could be argued that there is an easier way of correcting the anomaly for creditor insurance. The IPT legislation could be changed so that banks offering such a waiver have to pay IPT. That may attract the Treasury in terms of extra revenue. However, it would require new legislation to include those contracts within the IPT net. It effectively extends IPT beyond insurance and it would be difficult to define in practice, thus the only practical way of correcting the anomaly to which I have alluded, and I hope explained, is to exempt creditor insurance from IPT.
        Charging tax on creditor business will distort the market, but will not bring revenue to the Exchequer because the way of providing cover will change. The Government will have nothing to gain by taxing creditor business.
        Fifthly, creditor insurance should be exempt from IPT because the development of insurance products to complement state benefits will be hindered if IPT is charged on such products. This is a more political point. From 6 April, employers have to meet the costs of statutory sickness pay. One way of meeting that cost is via an insurance contract, so the prudent employer who takes out an insurance contract to cover statutory sick pay liabilities will not only have to meet the expected cost of sick pay, but will have to pay tax on it.
        We have seen Government interest in encouraging the private sector to assume a greater role in providing what are currently state insurance benefits for accident, sickness and unemployment.
        My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is on the Front Bench; I know that this problem will be of interest to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
        A range of creditor schemes could be offered by insurers to replace state benefits such as unemployment benefit, statutory sick pay, state invalidity benefits and income support. They could cover mortgage repayments,

        905
        loan commitments, household bills and many others. Such schemes, if taken up, could greatly reduce the Government's expenditure on current state benefits. Such savings will far exceed the annual revenue expected from IPT on creditor insurance, which will represent only about 3 per cent. of the annual IPT income to the Exchequer. The imposition of the new tax, with a prospect of rate increases in future years, could make such creditor schemes less attractive to the private sector.
        A new business is on the point of getting up and running and taking a huge load off the Government. It will deliver precisely what the Government believe is of utmost importance: it will involve the private sector in social insurance which is proving immensely damaging to Government finances. But at the very point when private insurance companies are prepared to provide this scheme and solve enormous problems for the Government, the Treasury slaps down a new tax. Hence it may not be worth while for private companies to become involved in this area in the future.
        Even if the Government do not accept my more technical points about harmonisation between building societies and insurance companies, or my points about a level playing field in Europe and our insurance companies being disadvantaged, I hope that, in their general review of the social security system, they will take stock and consider whether they are doing the right thing or whether they are throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope that, in my brief remarks, I have given a comprehensive account of why I believe that the Government should rethink their decision. I very much hope that they will do so.
        Mrs. Diana Maddock: I welcome the opportunity to support the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). Insurance premium tax will hit us all, but I think that it will hit vulnerable groups, such as those with disabilities, particularly hard. My hon. Friends in the Liberal Democratic party and I oppose the whole idea of tax on insurance. But if it cannot be stopped in its entirety, we believe that we should try to help those who will be hit hardest.
        I have already spoken at some length in the House against insurance premium tax. It is a very unfair tax. Not only does it tax something that we want people to do, both for their own benefit and for that of the state, but it taxes those who need insurance most, such as people who are unfortunate enough to live in crime black spots, and the elderly and disabled.
        People with disabilities who can drive usually own specially made or adapted vehicles, and they need vehicles more than most. It is already expensive for them to buy a suitable vehicle and many of them have special mobility needs which are recognised in the mobility component of the disabled living allowance. People in receipt of that component are exempt from road tax and those who receive higher rates of mobility allowance can also nominate others for that exemption. That is a welcome recognition by the Government of the importance of mobility to people with disabilities.
        The cost of adapting vehicles is very high. It is also difficult for many disabled people to purchase cheap cars. They often have to buy at the top of the range because they
        906
        need cars with automatic gearboxes. It is estimated that 60 per cent. of disabled drivers need cars with automatic gearboxes.
        The mobility organisation which was set up at the instigation of the Government helps people with disabilities to use their higher mobility allowance to buy or hire cars. But the organisation admits that it will have to pass on additional insurance costs to customers. I have been told by at least one organisation which helps disabled drivers—the Mobility Information Service—that the mobility allowance currently does not cover the cost of hiring, let alone buying, cars. Disabled people who can drive need their cars more than the average person, so how can we possibly put extra obstacles in their path?
        The Mobility Information Service estimates unofficially that people suffering from epilepsy commonly pay 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. extra insurance because they are considered to be a high-risk group. The cost goes much higher for people with other illnesses and disabilities. In addition, modified vehicles may attract higher insurance premiums.
        Liberal Democrats believe that insurance premium tax should not be imposed at all because it is a tax on something that we should encourage, and we are very disappointed that the Government do not agree. But when it comes to disabled people, for large numbers of whom cars or electric wheelchairs are absolutely essential for an active and fulfilling life, taxing vehicle insurance is very much more than disappointing. I hope that the Government will find some way to support the amendments proposed today.
        4.45 pm
        Sir John Cope: The leading amendment in this group is No. 43, which was moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I must admit that the amendment rather surprised me, because it would delete a whole range of exceptions offered by the Bill. I accept that the hon. Gentleman moved it in a different spirit; he described it as a "marker for the future". He said that he still thinks—although we have discussed the matter before —that the legislation should define what a contract of insurance is.
        I have told him in the past—I am still of that view—that the common law lays down what insurance is and hence what is taxable. I think that that definition is understood fairly well and I do not foresee any particular difficulty in interpretation. The hon. Gentleman asked, very fairly, that we keep the position under review, and I am happy to say that we will do that. I think that it is the correct thing to do, particularly when new taxes—such as this one and the airline passenger duty—are being introduced. I do not think that we shall need to change the legislation, but we shall keep it under review.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and others said that, throughout the discussions in preparing the tax, we have believed in the principle of low rate and wide coverage. I think that that is the correct principle. For that reason, I am reluctant to go down the road that he suggests with regard to creditor insurance. I do not say for a moment that creditor insurance is not a worthwhile and prudent, and every other complimentary adjective that he can think of, form of insurance, and he made some interesting points about it. As

        907
        I have said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and the House, we shall keep the details of the tax under careful consideration.
        The hon. Gentleman made some points which my colleagues—he referred to several of them—and I will consider very carefully. At one stage, he said that banks and insurance companies should be treated in an even-handed way. I am very keen for banks and insurance companies to be treated in that way and we have discussed the matter before, in Committee. Indeed, we are having useful discussions with the British Bankers Association and others about the borderline between taxable insurance and guarantees and other financial circumstances that are outside the scope of the legislation.
        It is already clear that few of the financial services provided by the banks will carry any insurance premium tax liability, but banks and insurance companies must be treated in an even-handed way. When an insurance company provides a guarantee or a service which is identical to that provided by banks, it will also be exempt under the legislation. Similarly, when banks provide true insurance services in the same way as insurances companies, they will be liable to insurance premium tax.
        I am sensitive to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said about the comparison between banks and insurance companies. However, I do not think that it would be right for me to recommend that the House support his amendment at this stage, although I promise that we shall examine it in the light of his remarks.
        Mr. Leigh: That is extremely helpful. I believe that my right hon. Friend is saying that, if I were to provide evidence of how insurance companies were being put in an unfair competitive position in relation to banks and building societies or foreign competitors, he would consider it sympathetically. I am grateful for that.
        Sir John Cope: I do not want to make any promises to my hon. Friend or to increase his hopes more than is justified, but I am certainly willing to listen to the new points that he has raised and to any further ones that he might add.
        In our discussions on this tax, as in those on the airport duty, it has been my job to expose the hard face of tax collectors. I stand by the general position that we have adopted of a low rate and wide coverage. It is perhaps therefore not inappropriate, in the closing minutes of this part of the debate, if I display to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter something that is seen more rarely—the Treasury's heart.
        My hon. Friend has been supported by all the hon. Members who have referred to Motability. Motability itself and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter have made forceful representations to us. Because of its unique position, Motability already has a number of special arrangements in taxation matters, and we think that it is right to extend them to the insurance premium tax. Therefore, I recommend that the House support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
        Mr. Darling: All hon. Members will welcome the concession that the Government have made in respect of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). People with disabilities already face formidable additional expense, and an exemption from insurance premium tax will be welcomed by everyone.
        908
        As the Paymaster General said, amendment No. 43 is a probing amendment. It was not intended to be anything more but, in some ways, the right hon. Gentleman made my point when replying to those made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were engaged in discussions with the British Bankers Association about certain bank guarantees and the difficulties that might arise vis-a-vis them and certain insurance contracts. I shall not repeat the arguments made in Committee, but he must recollect that, in our exchanges on 6 March, the right hon. Gentleman had to reply to a number of instances where it was not clear whether something was insurance, a warranty or a guarantee. I still believe that at some point it would be useful for the Government to reconsider that matter.
        Another reason that we should return to that point was highlighted by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, who went to the heart of the discussions that took place on Second Reading and in Committee. He mentioned the philosophical approach that we should adopt to insurance. I can understand why the Government, in their present state, looked around for something to tax in order to raise revenue, and realised that insurance, which, generally speaking, is taxed in the rest of the European Union, has not been taxed in this country until now. What the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said about creditor insurance could equally be said about motor and household insurance.
        Insurance is a social and economic necessity, and it is something that we should encourage. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle made some good points about creditor insurance. He referred to prudent employers insuring against the sickness or illness of their employees. In Committee, we mentioned instances where the principal of a business might ensure against a long and debilitating illness because the business might collapse if that person was off sick.
        They are good points, but the difficulty is that, if the Government allow exemption after exemption, the tax base shrinks. I fully accept that, and it is perhaps something with which the Government should have dealt before they sought to impose the tax. It seems that the Government looked for something to tax, found that insurance was exempt and decided to impose IPT. It might have been useful if, before they had done so, we had debated the philosophical approach to insurance.
        Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. I am sure that the House accepts that the Government are in an impossible position: whatever arguments are advanced, they do not want more exemptions, which complicate the system. Does the hon. Gentleman accept my point that creditor insurance is unique because it is a mixture of life and general policy? Trying to take it out of life policy and put it under general policy is unfair and merely confuses the issue. Would it not simplify the issue if creditor insurance was exempted?
        Mr. Darling: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but my recollection is that there is provision in this part of the Bill for hybrid insurance, where there is a mix of short-term and long-term insurance contracts. I see that the Paymaster General, who has probably read this part of the Bill more recently than I have, appears to be nodding in assent. There is provision for exemption, but I readily accept that a case can be made for creditor insurance.

        909
        Indeed, we tabled probing amendments in Committee which made similar points to those made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
        However, as I said, the same arguments can be advanced for motor insurance, because it is not in society's interest for people to drive around without paying their insurance. Nearly 40 per cent. of people in London do not have household insurance. Some people cannot get it, which is another issue that we have not discussed. We all agree that people should take out insurance. Many people want to do so but cannot get cover, because companies will not give a quotation or will quote a price that people cannot afford. The problem has been mentioned in the newspapers and the Government should have regard to it.
        However, the central point raised by the hon. Member for Exeter, which can be canvassed under amendment No. 43, is that the House tends to legislate first and think about the consequences later. In this case, it might have been useful to have examined the consequences and the approach that we should take to insurance before imposing tax. Taxation has consequences, a notion with which the Government have not dealt.
        I understand the Government's problem. They still have to deal with the highest public sector borrowing requirement that this country has ever had and, of course, their past mistakes have to be paid for. People who pay premiums on insurance contracts have to contribute. I understand the Government's desperate plight in trying to raise money but their actions will have consequences that the Government have either not realised or on which they are not prepared to focus.
        The Paymaster General can indeed say with some force that, at the moment, the rate is only 2.5 per cent., but how many of us believe that the rate will stay the same? The Government are committed to indirect taxation. If there is a choice between direct and indirect taxation, they will return to insurance premium tax. We did not call insurance premium tax "VAT on insurance" for nothing. If it had not been for a European directive, I am sure that VAT would have been imposed on insurance. The proposed tax will have a damaging effect on many people who have to pay insurance. Amendment No. 43 would have allowed the House to focus on the effects of the tax because we could have dealt with the philosophical approach to be adopted.
        Clearly, the Government decided to exempt long-term or life insurance for very good reasons, and no one would argue that it should be taxed. Nor would anyone argue that pensions, which are a form of insurance, should be taxed. Private pension provision and state provision are complementary; they go hand in hand and should be encouraged. However, general insurance is important and has social and economic effects, which is why we opposed the introduction of the new tax on Second Reading and in Committee. I understand why Conservative Members are raising such matters. Although the Government can make exemptions, such as the welcome one made in response to the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), when wider exemptions such as those for creditor insurance are made, the tax base shrinks.
        The Minister said that he wanted a low rate with wide coverage. I guess that in future there will be wider coverage and higher rates. In most people's experience, once a tax is imposed it is not removed. We now have a
        910
        new tax, about which the Government said nothing at the election, and they will return to it again and again, in their desperate attempt to raise money. That is why many people, not only in the House but outside, are concerned about the measure.
        Having acknowledged that our amendment was probing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: No. 40, in page 52, line 44, at end insert—
        '(ba) the contract relates only to a motor vehicle where the conditions mentioned in subsection (2A) below are satisfied;'.
        No. 41, in page 53, line 22, at end insert—
        '(2A) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(ba) above are that—

        (a) the vehicle is used, or intended for use, by a handicapped person in receipt of a disability living allowance by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component or of a mobility supplement,

        (b) the insured lets such vehicles on hire to such persons in the course of a business consisting predominantly of the provision of motor vehicles to such persons, and

        (c) the insured does not in the course of the business let such vehicles on hire to such persons on terms other than qualifying terms.

        (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(c) above a vehicle is let on qualifying terms to a person (the lessee) if the consideration for the letting consists wholly or partly of sums paid to the insured by—

        (a) the Department of Social Security,

        (b) the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, or

        (c) the Ministry of Defence, on behalf of the lessee in respect of the disability living allowance or mobility supplement to which the lessee is entitled.'.

        No. 42, in page 53, line 41, at end insert—
        '(7A) For the purposes of this section—

        (a) "handicapped" means chronically sick or disabled;

        (b) "disability living allowance" means a disability living allowance within the meaning of section 71 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or section 71 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;

        (c) "mobility supplement" means a mobility supplement within the meaning of article 26A of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, article 25A of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, article 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Exemption from Vehicles Excise Duty) Order 1985 or article 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Exemption from Vehicles Excise Duty) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.'. —[Sir John Hannam.]

      Clause 88

        BENEFICIAL LOAN ARRANGEMENTS
        5 pm
        The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 68, line 45, at end insert—
        '( ) In determining for the purposes of section 161(1A) and (1B) of that Act (inserted by this section) whether any loans made by any person before 1st June 1994 are made or held on the same terms or conditions, there shall be left out of account any amounts, by way of fees, commission or other incidental expenses, incurred for the purpose of obtaining any of those loans by the persons to whom they are made.'
        This is a minor extension to the provision that we introduced to stop employees having to pay income tax on loans from their employers where employers make loans to the public on the same terms. For loans made before 1 June

        911
        1994, the amendment disregards differences between loans to employees and loans to the public caused by the incidental cost of obtaining the loans. That is a small change, but I believe that it will be welcomed by the employees and employers affected, and also by the Inland Revenue, because it will simplify the system.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is simply to deal with the administrative costs involved in the making of the loan, so it is intended to be an even smaller alteration than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggested, because typically those costs are about £100 per transaction. I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that, in the Government's view, the amendment represents simply a tidying up of the original proposition that we discussed in Committee, and that there is no scope for rejigging the arrangements that could allow any unwanted and unwelcome avoidance.
        Mr. Dorrell: This is indeed a tidying-up measure. It is slightly more important for the employees concerned than the hon. Gentleman suggests, because under the law as originally written, the fact that an employee had not had to pay a £100 management charge would mean not only that he would not receive the tax concession on the £100 but that he would not receive it at all. That would come about because the public would have to pay the administration charge, so technically the loan would not have been made available on the same terms as loans made to a wider public.
        The purpose of the amendment is to tidy up the effects of the clause in that specific set of circumstances. It applies only to loans made before 1 June 1994, because it seems reasonable that, after that date, employers should ensure that if employees are to benefit from the terms of the provision, they must make available to them loans on precisely the same terms as those available to a wider public.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 93

        INDEXATION LOSSES
        Amendment made: No. 44, in page 74, line 13, at end insert
        'and Schedule [Indexation losses: transitional relief] to this Act (which gives transitional relief) shall have effect for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95.'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

      Clause 122

        SALE AND REPURCHASE OF SECURITIES: DEEMED MANUFACTURED PAYMENTS
        Mr. Nigel Forman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 115, line 48, at end insert—
        '(10) Before the Treasury appoints a day under subsection (9) above:—

        (a) the Treasury and the Board of Inland Revenue will consult such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by sections 737A to 737C; and

        (b) the consultation required by (a) above shall take into account the matters specified in subsection (11) below.

        (11) The matters specified for the purposes of subsection (10) above are:—
        912

        (a) the amount of taxation that would not be recoverable were no day to be appointed under subsection (9) above; and

        (b) the burden (including compliance) for taxpayers and other affected by sections 737A to 737C.'.

        The amendment stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), and I believe that my hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye later in this short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        I begin by declaring my interests, which appear on the Register of Members' Interests, and which are relevant to the subject. I also record my thanks to the British Merchant Banking and Security Houses Association, one of the organisations that has been most prominent in drawing the subject to the attention not only of the Standing Committee but of Ministers—I believe quite effectively.
        By inserting the proposed words at the end of what is now clause 122, my hon. Friend and I hope to achieve several simple but worthwhile purposes. First, we hope to bring about or encourage—indeed, to require—the fullest possible consultation of practitioners by the Treasury and the relevant officials in the Inland Revenue. Our second aim, which is just as important, is to ensure that the consultation takes place before the new rules are implemented. In other words, to be truly effective from the practitioners' point of view, consultation must take place before the event.
        Thirdly, we hope that there will be sufficient time sensibly to address all the practical problems of implementation. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will know from his experience of tax matters that the area is potentially extremely complicated, so sufficient time is necessary to obtain a sensible tax regime. Fourthly, we want the consultation process to take full account of the potential compliance burdens. If those burdens were too great, adverse consequences for this country could follow.
        I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to confirm that the Government have no intention of discouraging normal commercial repo transactions from being undertaken in the United Kingdom, and that his objective will be to establish a workable regime that strikes an appropriate balance between the need to protect the Exchequer and the need to minimise the extent to which compliance requirements have to be imposed on the market. If my hon. Friend can achieve that balance, many of the objectives to which I have subscribed my name will have been achieved.
        Of course clause 122 is necessary to protect the Exchequer, and to ensure a reasonable flow of revenue for this country from the sale and repurchase of securities conducted within this tax jurisdiction. That is understood. But equally, Ministers for their part should understand that, if the tax or the regulatory arrangements under the clause were allowed to become too complicated or burdensome, firms could switch that highly mobile form of business to other financial centres. Then the expected revenue and other wealth-generating benefits of those growing activities could be lost to this country.
        I have often said in earlier debates on the Bill that we now live in a world of global capital flows, mobile financial services and increasing competition between national tax authorities. In that context, the consultation that the amendment recommends is all the more important. We must take full account of the new global realities if we are to do what is best for Britain, as well as for the financial services industry located here.

        913
        I welcome the letter sent to me on 12 April by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which said:
        "The Government wishes to ensure that adequate consultation takes place before the new rules are implemented, and indeed it is for that reason that they are to come into force from a future appointed day. The legislation is necessary to protect the Exchequer and implementation cannot be delayed indefinitely but I confirm that a reasonable time will be allowed for practical problems to be addressed and that the consultative process will take account of the compliance burden involved."
        That was a good statement from the Economic Secretary, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to go at least as far as that today, if not further.
        In conclusion, naturally I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept my modest but necessary amendment. If, for some reason, he cannot do that, I hope that he will at any rate make it crystal clear to me and to the House, on the record, that he and the Chancellor share its spirit and intentions and that they will insist that Inland Revenue officials, in their consultations with the practitioners, act in that light.
        Mr. Matthew Carrington: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), because the derivatives industry and trading in derivatives are of increasing importance to the City of London as a financial centre. It would be disastrous if anything happened that gave rise to a decrease in confidence in that industry and which resulted in that market moving away from London to somewhere in Europe or elsewhere in the world.
        The purpose of the amendment is to get a public statement from the Government that they do not intend to penalise that industry, but to achieve an equitable taxation regime, which both the industry and the Government need, which would allow the industry to develop and to prosper in London while producing the revenues which, quite legitimately, the Government require.
        We look for confidence-building rather than for action. We look for the reassurance that nothing will be imposed on the industry until all the foreseen problems are resolved, with the understanding, of course, that the problems have to be resolved within a reasonable period. The clause imposes a time limit of its own accord. I urge my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to make a statement that will reassure the industry.
        Mr. Darling: The trouble with the amendment is that it could equally well be tabled to every other clause in the Bill. All taxpayers could say that they too should be consulted before the Government change the tax regime. However, I very much understand and appreciate the point made by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) with regard to this industry. Most of us are well aware of the importance of the industry to London, and therefore to the United Kingdom.
        Equally, all of us are becoming aware of tax competition, not just in the European Union, but throughout the world. Many people inside and outside the House will have to wake up to the fact that there will be tax competition, and every Government must pay regard to that. Having said that, I believe that there are times when the industry relies rather too much on the excuse that, if it
        914
        is taxed, business will go elsewhere. The Exchequer must be fair to taxpayers in general, as well as being mindful of the effect on the industry.
        The central point is that, in some ways, the amendment is a fitting conclusion to the Report stage. Many Committee members, especially those who follow proceedings outside the House, felt that the taxes management provisions of this year's Finance Bill might have been dealt with separately from other provisions that were more politically contentious. When this part of the Bill was being discussed, we were told that it was being taken first under the guillotine because there had already been widespread consultation. That point was open to discussion, to put it no higher than that.
        It would be useful for the Financial Secretary to tell us whether the Government intend to adopt the practice of introducing a taxes management Bill in addition to the Finance Bill, so that some of the technical matters, which are not as controversial as others, can be debated in greater depth. There were occasions in Committee when we did not do justice to many of the provisions because we did not have the time. If taxes management is mixed up with politically contentious issues, we tend to concentrate on the latter. As a matter of good Government practice, greater attention should be given to the administration of the tax regime.
        I have no objection to the Government consulting; I should be interested to hear what the Government have to say on that. My difficulty with the amendment, which I do not suppose for one minute will be pressed to a Division, is that it would be wrong for the Government to agree to consult in respect of one provision in the Bill and not to make the same concession everywhere else. Having said that, I understand why the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Fulham made their point. Indeed, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington very fairly said that there was concern in the industry.
        It would not be right for the House not to acknowledge the fact that millions of people would like to be consulted, not least the millions of people who were led to believe in April 1992 that, if they elected a Conservative Government, there would be reductions in tax. No one consulted them about the Government's policy to tax them again and again, with the result that we have the largest tax hike in peacetime history, without a word of consultation, let alone a word of apology from the Government.
        5.15 pm
        Mr. Dorrell: The last point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) may be more fully addressed on Third Reading. On his narrower point about a proposed taxes management Bill, I tell him that the Government's view has not changed. We have said several times that we do not believe that a separate taxes management Bill is a sensible way for the House to go and that the Government's approach of ensuring that there is the maximum possible consultation, especially on issues that are not the stuff of intense party political interest or, indeed, of wider political interest, but are more narrowly technical in terms of their application to the tax system, is more sensible.
        The Government have sought to consult widely on those issues before introducing proposals in the House. The contents of this year's Bill included several proposals that were the subject of extensive prior consultation. All the

        915
        proposals on self-assessment were the subject of extensive consultation before the Bill was presented, and the proposals in chapter II on interest rate and currency contracts were consulted on widely, as were a number of other proposals. That is a better way to deliver detailed, in-depth discussion on the operation of legislation than introducing a specific Bill and expecting that our Standing Committee procedures can be refined to produce line-by-line consideration of such technical matters. I am bound to say that those who believe that our procedures could be thus refined suspend belief.
        I now turn to the point of the amendment. It will come as no surprise to the House that I do not propose that we accept it. However, I am happy to accept the basic argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington: that we should ensure that we consult the industry to maximise the opportunity for agreement before the clause is brought into effect. I fully accept that further consultation is appropriate to establish precisely how the procedures should operate in relation to the repurchase of securities. It is for that reason that the legislation comes into effect from an appointed day rather than immediately after Royal Assent. The intention is to allow reasonable time to enable any potential compliance problem to be identified and addressed before the rules are extended to cover repos.
        The consultation process has already begun, and I can assure the House that the objective is to establish a workable regime which does not impose on taxpayers a compliance burden that is more onerous than is absolutely necessary to protect the United Kingdom Exchequer. It is accepted on both sides that the Exchequer interest is an important interest. The intention of the clause is to safeguard that interest. We intend for that reason to ensure that the clause is implemented. There is no question of the clause not being implemented or of implementation being delayed indefinitely. The purpose of the clause is to protect the Exchequer from the real risk of tax being lost from repos being used to switch tax credits from persons who cannot use them to persons who can.
        In discussing the procedural issues with market representatives, the Inland Revenue will attempt to arrive —this is the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington was concerned—at an agreed solution, if that is possible, which strikes an appropriate balance between the need to protect the Exchequer and the need to minimise the extent to which compliance requirements have to be imposed on markets.
        I can give my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Fulham the clear assurance that the Government have no intention of discouraging the legitimate repo market. It is a form of derivative which has a clear function to perform in financial markets, and I have no difficulty whatever with that. The use of repos to avoid tax in the way I have described is, however, not legitimate and it is that point that we wish to address. That focus was the reason for introducing the clause in the first place and the reason why the clause will ultimately be implemented. However, we shall try to do it by agreement.
        Mr. Forman: May I briefly impose on the House a few more words? There are two points on which I want to touch in relation to the comments by the hon. M for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). First, he suggested at one stage that the industry may be making an empty threat to move elsewhere. I am sure that he does not really believe that. In
        916
        fact, many of the firms that are most concerned with those activities and which are growing most successfully are already multinational and already have offices established in other financial centres to which they can switch the business with a few phone calls. It would be as quick and as easy as that, so the matter is of real concern to the industry.
        Secondly, the argument that all branches of society that are affected by tax could argue that they should have more time to consult with the Government does not hold as much water as the hon. Gentleman thinks. We are discussing an especially complicated area of tax and regulations, as I am sure that he appreciates. We are all pretty low on the learning curve with regard to derivatives and it is an area which is so arcane in the eyes of legislators and tax authorities that the need for consultation is underlined rather than diminished. That is all I shall say to the hon. Gentleman, and in a friendly spirit.
        In his welcome remarks, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave assurances for which I am grateful. I know that the industry will be grateful to have those assurances on the record. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 125

        PAYMENT BY INTERMEDIARY
        Amendments made: No. 3, in page 119, line 11, leave out 'of the payment made by the intermediary' and insert
        'determined in accordance with subsection (2A) below.'.
        No. 4, in page 119, line 17, at end insert—
        '(2A) The amount referred to is—

        (a) if the amount of the payment made by the intermediary is an amount to which the recipient, is entitled after deduction of any income tax, the aggregate of the amount of that payment and the amount of any income tax due; and

        (b) in any other case, the amount of the payment made by the intermediary.'

        No. 4, in page 119, line 17, at end insert—
        '(2A) The amount referred to is—

        (a) if the amount of the payment made by the intermediary is an amount to which the recipient is entitled after deduction of any income tax, the aggregate of the amount of that payment and the amount of any income tax due; and

        (b) in any other case, the amount of the payment made by the intermediary.'

        No. 5, in page 119, line 18, leave out 'is made to an employee' and insert
        'of, or on account of, assessable income of an employee is made.'.
        No. 6, in page 119, line 24, after 'persons' insert 'who include'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Clause 126

        TRADEABLE ASSETS
        Amendments made: No. 7, in page 119, line 28 leave out '203B' and insert '203BD'.
        No. 8, in page 119, line 29, leave out '125' and insert
        `(Employees working for persons other than their employers, etc.).'—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Clause 130

        SUPPLEMENTARY
        Amendments made: No. 9, in page 122, line 10, after 'section,' insert '(a)'.
        No. 10, in page 122, line 12, leave out '203B to 203F' and insert
        '203B, 203BB and 203C to 203F, other than a payment whose amount is determined in accordance with section 203B(2A)(a) or 203BB(3)(a); and
        (b) any reference to an employer includes a reference to a person who is treated as making a payment by virtue of section 203BB(2).'.
        No. 11, in page 123, line 32, after 'and' insert `(subject to section 203G(2)(b)r.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Clause 131

        PAYMENTS ETC. RECEIVED FREE OF TAX
        Amendment made: No. 12, in page 124, line 14, at end insert—
        `(2) In this section any reference to an employer includes a reference to a person who is treated as making a payment by virtue of section 203BB(2).".'—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Clause 176

        PERSONAL AND TRUSTEE'S RETURNS
        Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 161, line 35, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15 to 23.
        Mr. Dorrell: In the course of debate in Committee on the self-assessment provisions of the Finance Bill, the Government accepted amendments to the clause relating to personal and trustee's returns which were tabled by the Opposition. That was an example of the listening Government in action—the Government who are ever prepared to be flexible in response to sensible proposals from the Opposition. The amendments ensured that documents and other accompanying material required with a tax return issued to an individual or trustee would be limited to those which could be reasonably so required. It was a case that was pressed on us articulately and persuasively by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and I am happy to commend the resulting amendments to the House.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is not the Opposition's intention to oppose the amendments. Their purpose was to insert a test of reasonableness. The Financial Secretary, being a reasonable man, accepted our arguments and has been good enough to bring back the amendments on Report. I rise solely to thank him for it.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 15, in page 161, line 39, leave out 'required in pursuance of the notice' and insert 'so required'.
        No. 16, in page 162, line 19, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.
        No. 17, in page 162, line 23, leave out 'required in pursuance of the notice' and insert 'so required'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Clause 179

        RETURN OF PROFITS
        Amendments made: No. 18, in page 164, line 16, at beginning insert—
        '-( ) In subsection (1) of section 11 of the Management Act (return of profits), after the words "as may", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted the word "reasonably".
        ( ) In subsection (1A) of that section, after the words "a company may", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted the word "reasonably".'.
        No. 19, in page 164, line 16, leave out from 'subsection (2) of' to
        'there' in line 17 and insert 'that section'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Clause 182

        PARTNERSHIP RETURN
        Amendments made: No. 20, in page 166, line 11, after `may', insert 'reasonably'.
        No. 21, in page 166, line 14, leave out 'be required in pursuance of the notice' and insert 'reasonably be so required'.
        No. 22, in page 166, line 21, after 'may', insert `reasonably'.
        No. 23, in page 166, line 24, leave out 'be required in pursuance of the notice' and insert 'reasonably be so required'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Clause 187

        AMENDMENT OF PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT
        Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 173, line 35, leave out from 'notice' to 'under' in line 36 and insert
        'to each of the partners so amend his self-assessment'.
        The amendment clarifies the Government's intention that, where a partnership statement is amended, the Inland Revenue will notify each of the partners of the consequential amendment to their individual self-assessments.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: That was another of the Opposition's rare victories in Committee. Again, may I thank the Financial Secretary for returning to the matter on Report. It seems fair to us and clearly also strikes the Financial Secretary so, that the choice of partner should not be left to the taxing authorities. It should be clear that, if a notice is to be issued, each partner should be informed and that we should not rely only on the notice going to one partner who may not be the relevant partner for taxation purposes. That was the thrust of the debate in Committee, and the Government have accepted the reasonableness of the Opposition's point of view. I thank the Financial Secretary for it.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Schedule 18
        MANAGEMENT: OTHER AMENDMENTS
        Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 385, line 30, at end insert—

        'CLASS 4 CONTRIBUTIONS
        44A. In subsection (1) of section 16 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (application of Income Tax Acts to class 4 contributions), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "(b) the provisions of Part VA (payment of tax) and Part X (penalties) of the Taxes Management Act 1970,".'.
        The provision concerns the extension to class 4 national insurance contributions of the administrative machinery rules that apply to income tax. In general, those rules are automatically applied through the operation of section 16 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and no specific provision is needed for class 4 national insurance contributions to take account of the introduction of self-assessment.
        However, self-assessment contains one new element: a surcharge for the late payment of tax introduced by clause 192. I am advised that it is not entirely free from doubt that surcharge could be imposed on unpaid class 4 contributions. The amendment makes it clear that the rules for surcharge in relation to income tax, contained in the Taxes Management Act 1970, are equally applied to unpaid class 4 national insurance contributions.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am afraid that we cannot take responsibility for this amendment. It deals with an oversight in the Government's drafting of the regulations for their surcharge regime. Nevertheless, I am sure that it is reasonable.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 253

        CALLING FOR DOCUMENTS OF TAXPAYERS AND OTHERS.
        Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 222, line 39, leave out
        'or assist in the evasion or avoidance of tax'.
        Clause 253 requires a tax inspector to give the taxpayer his reasons for applying for consent to issue an information notice in respect of that person's tax liability. One of the exceptions to that requirement in the clause as currently drafted is where a general or special Commissioner is satisfied that there are grounds for believing that the disclosure of the reasons would prejudice the assessment or the collection of tax or assist in the evasion or avoidance of tax.
        In Committee, concerns were expressed that the use of the term "avoidance" could lead to an inspector's reasons being withheld in cases of straightforward tax planning. That was never intended. In view of those concerns, we have decided to remove the reference to evasion and avoidance of tax from the clause. That should allay the fears of hon. Members and also bring the new provision into line with similar references elsewhere in the statute book.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome what the Government are doing, for which I think that the Opposition may claim some credit. It is quite an important matter. Clause 253, as it is harmlessly described now, was the much more controversial clause 240 in Committee, and was followed by the even more controversial clause 241, which the Financial Secretary withdrew, to approval from hon. Members from all parties.
        The debate in Committee was heated. Points made by Labour and Conservative Members were critical of the Government's wording of their legislation. Although, I
        920
        accept, as the Financial Secretary told us at the time, that the purpose of clause 253 was to grant a concession rather than to place a burden on the taxpayer, exception was rightly taken to the choice of "avoidance and evasion" as a phrase.
        It was not only the phrase that the Financial Secretary used in the debate, but the wording in the Bill, and it was clear to Opposition Members and, indeed, to the Financial Secretary's hon. Friends that "avoidance" in some circumstances is open to a wide interpretation and could be construed to refer to the perfectly lawful arrangements that a taxpayer makes. I am glad that the Financial Secretary has decided to think again, and the proposed outcome is for the best.
        5.30 pm
        It is right to put on record the considerable disquiet that was felt on the Opposition Benches at the way in which the debate was handled in Committee. The timetable motion was set out in such a way that the debate—an important one—was the final debate on a Thursday. The Committee's sitting hours on a Thursday were shorter than those on a Tuesday under the guillotine. It was unfortunate that such an important debate was the final debate on the Thursday when it took place, a day on which other controversial matters were discussed.
        I felt at the time that it might not be possible to discuss the issue in Committee because of the terms of the guillotine motion. Indeed, we almost lost the opportunity to debate it. It would have been extremely serious if there had been a straight vote for or against the clause and the following clause, without pertinent matters having been explained and explored and without the Government having the chance to change their mind.
        There are two lessons for us. First, debate in Committee can be of some importance. Secondly, guillotine motions or timetable agreements, which I hope we shall have in future, should be drawn with much more care and, dare I say it, with much more consultation.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the change that is set out in the Government's amendment. The change, together with the abandonment of former clause 241, reflects the strong feelings that were expressed in Committee. The Minister and the Revenue should recognise that it was felt in Committee that, in a combination of clauses, the Revenue were trying it on a bit. When it reached the point at which the Revenue sought to have power over the papers of taxpayers who were guilty of no misdemeanour, merely because there was a suspicion that their accountant in his dealing with another taxpayer may have assisted improperly in withholding information from the Revenue, the Committee felt that it was too much of a try-on.
        The Revenue is expected seriously to chase tax evasion and to do so thoroughly. There is a difficult line to be drawn. The Minister may take some lesson from the general feeling of the members of the Committee that the two clauses taken together seemed to go too far. The Minister has obviously recognised that.
        Mr. Dorrell: I intervene briefly, but not to have a re-run of the debate that took place in Committee. I shall content myself by thanking the House for its welcome for the outturn of our debates.
        I shall take up the closing comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I

        921
        shall not repeat old arguments about the degree of consultation on the operation of the guillotine. I wish only to observe that the hon. Gentleman did not say that we should never have a timetable motion again. Instead, he recommended the way in which a timetable motion might be better administered. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I, and perhaps more importantly for this purpose my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, heard and noted his remarks.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: For the avoidance of any doubt, it has always been my view that the sensible timetabling of the taxes management part of the Finance Bill should be encouraged and welcomed. In the past, we entered into arrangements with the Government which effectively did exactly that.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Schedule 25

        REPEALS
        Amendment made: No. 35, in page 452, line 46, at end insert—

        '(3) Assigned matters: minor corrections

        Chapter

        Short title

        Extent of repeal

        1979 c. 2.

        The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

        In section 118A, subsection (7).

        1983 c. 55.

        The Value Added Tax Act 1983.

        In Schedule 7, in paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (6).'

        —[Mr. Portillo.]
        Order for Third Reading read.
        5.33 pm
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        Life is full of surprises. Here we are, shortly after 5·30 in the afternoon, turning to the Third Reading of a Bill which has proceeded under a guillotine. I make the point not to create any tension or upset between the occupants of the Front Benches but merely to remark that a Bill which has proceeded under a timetable motion has been given sufficient time for hon. Members to consider the important matters that have been placed before them.
        I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have found the timetabling of the Bill to their convenience. I think also that that goes for many people outside the House. It has been a matter of convenience for them. It has been much clearer to outside interests that have a legitimate point of view to put to the House when the matters in which they were interested would come before the Standing Committee for consideration. As a consequence, they have been able to make their recommendations in a timely way.
        I say nothing about what future proposals might be for the handling of these matters. It is worth putting on record, however, that the timetabling of the Bill has not led to any shortage of debate or shortage of opportunity to make representations. I think that in general the process has proceeded smoothly.
        Ms Angela Eagle: As this was my first Finance Bill, I am in a slightly odd position because I do not know what a Finance Bill without a guillotine is like.
        922
        Is the Chief Secretary saying that the Conservative party will be happy to have future Labour Governments' Finance Bills guillotined at the beginning of the parliamentary process so that they, too, can be speedily dispatched?
        Mr. Portillo: No. I have restricted myself to making comments about the past and not about the future. It is important to get the past straight. I wanted to do that. I think that the only way that things might be done differently, were this process ever to take place again, would be that the Opposition would want to attend the Business Committee, at which the phasing of this Bill was first discussed.
        The guillotining of the Bill was only one of several novelties this year. We found ourselves debating a Finance Bill at a time of year to which we were not accustomed. We debated the Bill at the beginning of the year. We found ourselves also taking time out of the Committee to run to various television and radio studios to debate some of the tax measures that were to come into force at the beginning of April. The paradox was that most of the tax measures that we found ourselves debating in various studios were not measures contained in the Bill. Instead, they were measures that were introduced by the previous Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).
        Mr. Beith: Before the Chief Secretary gets fully into this especially interesting part of the past, I hope that he will not fail to notice that among the novelties of the Bill were two new taxes, neither of which had been the subject of any prior consultation—one on airports and one on insurance. Another novelty was that the Bill was printed in two volumes, being of greater length than any previous Finance Bill.
        Mr. Portillo: Yes, the Bill was of greater length than its predecessors. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it was the first time that the Bill was printed in two volumes. For that reason, I thank all members of the Standing Committee for their diligence in paying attention to the Bill. It was for the reason of length that the guillotine motion provided for rather more hours of debate than those which were expended on the previous Finance Bill, which was not subject to a timetable motion.
        Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that having Finance Bills as large as the one that is before us is not satisfactory? Will the Government consider in future separating the main Budget proposals and having a relatively shorter Bill, and having a technical Bill dealing with anti-avoidance measures, which the Inland Revenue introduces every year? Would not that be a much more satisfactory approach?
        Mr. Portillo: That very question had been raised only shortly before my hon. Friend entered the Chamber, during consideration of one of the amendments. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained that it was not the Government's wish to operate in that way.
        Bearing in mind what has happened during consideration of the Bill, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) will find that the matters considered technical were not matters on which the Committee found itself wishing to spend a long time. Taking all matters together—the technical and the more political—did not inhibit the smooth discussion of the Bill. I would be in some difficulty to find instances in which not

        923
        separating out technical and political matters caused difficulties for the Committee. In practice, I do not think that the Committee found itself in those difficulties.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames brought in an extremely brave Budget at the beginning of 1993. It was one which took seriously the problem of the public sector borrowing requirement and demonstrated beyond doubt that the Government would ensure that that borrowing requirement was tackled. My right hon. Friend was proceeding at a time when it was not at all evident that the recovery was under way. He therefore had to be cautious about introducing taxes in the early part of 1993. What he established was a wedge of increasing revenue for the years ahead, and it is some of that wedge that came into play in April 1994.
        The effect of my right hon. Friend's Budget in March 1993 was to convince the markets that the Government were entirely in earnest about tackling the public sector borrowing requirement. As a consequence, through 1993, even though we were borrowing at a rate of about £1,000 million a week, we saw short-term interest rates fall, and we saw long-term interest rates also fall. The impact of that on the recovery is important. If the opposite had happened —if interest rates had been rising—the recovery would have been put in jeopardy.
        What the Government did was to ensure, even at a time when it was unwise to introduce the tax increases, that the markets were reassured that we would take action. They set out the precise course and the exact taxes that would be increased. In the process, they took a number of political risks. But taking those political risks was worth while, because it showed the markets that we meant business.
        In the March 1993 Budget, my right hon. Friend also had to take some decisions on indirect taxes which would have an impact on the retail prices index. That required considerable courage at that time. It is interesting to reflect now on how much lower inflation is today than we were predicting one year ago. Inflation has stayed very low. The retail prices index, excluding mortgage interest payments, is at the lowest level since 1967, and the headline rate has been below the European Community average since August 1991.
        Today, we see that the underlying inflationary pressures are very weak: factory gate inflation is at the lowest level since 1973 and businesses are keeping their costs under control. The recent underlying earnings growth is the lowest that it has been in 25 years.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: Is not the point about taxation that, if the two Chancellors of the Exchequer had not wisely raised taxation in 1993, the debate now would be about how much taxation we would be forced to raise this year? In other words, we cannot avoid the problem. Indeed, if the taxation rates had not been increased in 1993, we would not have had interest rates down to the present level, because the markets simply would not have accepted that the Government were serious about borrowing, and there would therefore be other pressures in the interest rate market.
        Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Government make wise decisions, the difficulty is to prove the existence of the dog that did not bark. There was no funding crisis in 1993. lnterest rates were not rising; they were falling, despite the pressures that the Government were imposing on the market through their
        924
        level of borrowing. I simply remind my hon. Friend that the Government have taken action to solve the public sector borrowing requirement problem not only by increasing taxes but, more importantly, by decreasing public spending.
        Ms Eagle: I thank the Chief Secretary for giving way again; he is very courteous. I listened to what he said about the political courage demonstrated by his Government in raising the massive tax revenues in 1993. Surely the economic situation that the Government would face was obvious before the 1992 election. Would it not have been much more courageous therefore for the Government to take these difficult decisions before the general election rather than after it?
        Mr. Portillo: What was evident in the early part of 1992 was that there was a substantial public sector borrowing requirement, but it was not evident that it would be anything like the £50 billion which was subsequently predicted. In the early part of 1992, we believed that the recovery would begin strongly and proceed apace.
        It was not only the Government who had those views; they were shared by independent forecasters and by the Labour party. If they were not shared by the Labour party, it is inexplicable that the Labour party was planning massive increases in public spending. If it knew all the time what no one else knew—that the public sector borrowing requirement would be larger—how on earth could it have been responsibly proposing that public spending should be massively increased?
        I should like to know from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) or the Opposition spokesman whether the reason was that the Labour party was all-knowing. Was it that it had knowledge that no one else had, and yet it persisted with its irresponsible plans to raise public spending, or was it that it shared the views of all the experts and the Government, which was that the recovery would shortly begin and that it would be strong, and that the public sector borrowing requirement would not reach anything like the heights that it has subsequently reached?
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not my right hon. Friend being unduly modest in his sunshine list, because he did not add the excellent unemployment figures which were released today? Those figures show that unemployment is down 0·2 per cent. nationally and—we usually lead the way—down·3 per cent. in Lancaster. My right hon. Friend also did not give the superb figures, to which he referred obliquely, for the public sector borrowing requirement. Such figures were unheard of one year ago; he could not possibly have forecast them.
        Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It may not seem like it, but I am still on paragraph one, and I intend to reach some of those points in a moment.
        It is worth dwelling on the importance of our success with inflation. It is worth reminding people that keeping inflation down is a vital objective for the Government. We are firmly committed to a monetary policy that will maintain downward pressure on inflation. We will not let up on our achievements so far, and we will ensure that we meet our targets in the future.
        Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Minister telling the House that the massive increase in domestic fuel bills will keep inflation down? Is he aware that low-paid workers and the

        925
        unemployed are suffering dramatically because of the huge indirect taxes that the Government have imposed? How in God's name can he hold his head up and say that the Government are helping ordinary men and women?
        Mr. Portillo: Since privatisation of the electricity and gas industries, prices have fallen either in real terms or, in some instances, in cash terms. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in the Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced a package of assistance not only for those on low incomes but for all pensioners, whatever their incomes might be. What has made old people suffer is not the fact that taxes have been increased but the fact that Labour sought to scare them about the scale of the increases. We are talking about increases of about £1 a week. The Government have provided compensation which, in large measure, pays for those extra increases. What Labour have done is to spread an idea that the increases will be vastly greater than they are.
        I warn the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) that that will rebound on the Labour party, because, when people discover that they have been misled by the Labour party's black propaganda, they will be angry. To scare old people in the way that the Labour party has done is unforgivable, and they will turn on the party that has perpetrated it.
        Mr. Clive Betts: Can the Chief Secretary respond to a constituent of mine who wrote to me the other day saying that, first, the 70p that he would receive in additional pension would not compensate him for his increased fuel bills and, secondly, because he had a small occupational pension and therefore paid income tax, he would be taxed on that 70p as well? Have the Government taken into account the increase in income tax that they will receive from this process when calculating the compensation that will be paid to people in that situation?
        Mr. Portillo: I presume that the hon. Gentleman realises that, if the public sector borrowing requirement is reduced and more revenue is raised, someone must pay for that. The Government have never shied away from saying that taxpayers will have to pay. However, they have ensured that people on low incomes are compensated to help them to meet their extra fuel bills. We have gone much further than that by compensating all pensioners, whatever their incomes may be, to help them with their extra fuel bills.
        The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is saying that pensioners who are not only not living on income support but who also have an extra income on which they pay tax should also be compensated for the tax that they must pay on the increase. That is not reasonable from the hon. Gentleman's point of view. If he reflects on it, he will see that it is not a sensible proposition. The economy is growing. There now have been seven quarters of growth, and gross domestic product rose by 0·7 per cent. in the last quarter of 1993. It rose by 2·5 per cent. on a year earlier. Many other encouraging figures tell us that the recovery is spreading from one sector to another.
        Manufacturing output is up, and exports to countries outside the EC have risen by 11 per cent. Retail sales are at a record level—a level which has never been achieved before—and new car registrations are up significantly.
        926
        That is important, because it shows that consumers are gradually having the confidence to make longer-term spending commitments, and that can be seen also in the rise in consumer credit.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said a moment ago, unemployment has fallen by 30,000 in March. It has fallen by 250,000 since the end of 1992, and vacancies are still at a high level. The unemployment rate is below the EC average.
        I mention that because the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) are keen on saying that they want to solve the problem of unemployment, and that, if they solve that problem, they will solve the problem of the public sector borrowing requirement. Yet the magic socialist formula which they would employ to drive down unemployment and to bring about recovery is not available to the socialist Governments around Europe.
        I remind the House that our rate of unemployment is below the EC average and that the Spanish rate of unemployment—when last I looked—was 22 per cent. If there were some magic socialist formula to bring down unemployment and to bring about recovery—rather than to bring about recovery and to bring down unemployment—would it not be likely that the Spanish socialist Government would be using it? If the Labour party has some secret, why is it so mean as not to share it with the socialist Governments in Europe so that they can put it into practice?
        Mr. Hoon: The Chief Secretary's case appears to be that there is a massive upturn in consumer confidence in the United Kingdom, and that the Government are taking advantage of that. If that is the Government's position, why did the Chancellor tell the Governor of the Bank of England in January that he was much less sure that the pace of growth had picked up significantly in recent months? In March, the Chancellor told the Governor that anecdotal evidence did not suggest that activity was growing strongly.
        Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented what I said. I said that new car registrations showed some sign of an increase in confidence among consumers who were willing to commit themselves to long-term decisions. I did not say that there had been a massive resurgence in consumer confidence. We know from surveys that confidence is relatively delicate.
        We know that people making business decisions have felt the return of confidence, and that most people in business think that the recovery has now reached their sector. In time, the confidence which is felt by the people who are making decisions in business will ripple out to employees and to consumers, and that will be felt throughout the economy. However, there is absolutely no point in pretending that the recovery has been faster or has progressed further than it has. I am making no such pretence. I do say that all the signs are very good.
        We have had another example of the Opposition wishing to talk the recovery down. We know perfectly well that the recovery is on track, but we have never made grandiose claims about its size or pace. This is not a technicolor utopia. We are concerned about having a recovery which is sustainable, and which is compatible with low inflation.

        927
        The people who really matter—business men and investors—have confidence in the Government's economic policies, and this Bill is at the very heart of those policies. The themes of the Government's approach are the fixity of our purpose, the clarity of our economic policy and the transparency of the decisions which we make. We want sustainable non-inflationary growth to make the people of this country better off. Growth is not an end in itself—it is worth having only if it enables living standards to rise, and that means keeping inflation well under control.
        If inflation returned, it would bring all the old evils with it. There would be an arbitrary redistribution of income within our society, a distortion of investment decisions and all the pain that is inevitably involved in having to cure inflation again by adjusting interest rates and by the recessionary forces which then come about.
        Non-inflationary sustainable growth is our aim, and that must be based upon sound public finances. If we do not have sound public finances, we will pile up levels of borrowing, the interest on which must be paid by future generations. It is no part of the Conservative Government's policy to pass a burden of debt down to our children. That debt repayment burden which is now being faced by so many countries diverts resources from productive investment and threatens recovery by undermining confidence.
        The Conservative principle of sound public finance is embodied in the Budget and in the Bill. We have projected to reduce the PSBR to zero by the end of the decade.
        We also place emphasis on making our economy perform better and making reforms to the supply side of the economy. Free markets allocate the resources best to where they should be used, and where they can produce the best result. Interventionist policies, on the other hand, are a sure recipe for economic sclerosis. The Government are proud to be taking further measures to improve the way in which the economy works.
        We are privatising British Coal and British Rail. We are making sure that incentives operate well within the economy by the changes and reforms which we are making to invalidity benefit with the introduction of a new benefit called incapacity benefit. We will also introduce in due course a job seeker's allowance to make sure that there are clear incentives for people to work when they are able so to do.
        We have a clear destination in terms of where we wish to lead public finances, and we have set ourselves a series of milestones along the way. We have announced clear public inflation targets, and we are willing to be judged on the basis of those. We have set out firm public spending ceilings. It is our aim to make sure that the rate at which the new control total for public spending rises is kept below the trend growth rate in the economy. We took £10 billion off of our earlier public spending plans by the decisions made in the Budget, and the new control total of public spending is set to grow by an average of 0·25 per cent. in real terms per year for each of the years between now and 1996–97.
        We are open in discussing our economic policy, and we have set it out clearly. The Chancellor has taken further steps to make sure that his monetary policy is transparent. We have now published—as has been mentioned in the House—the minutes of the monthly monetary meeting. We have established an independent panel of forecasters to display a range of views about future inflation and economic conditions.
        928
        We have already set about publishing the monthly monetary report, and we have made the Bank of England independent to the point that it is able to decide the timing of interest rate changes. We have made clear to the world the indicators which we will take into account before we make decisions on monetary policy. In making the changes, the Chancellor has tried to make it absolutely clear to everyone that our interest rate decisions are to be taken for the only good reasons there are—that is, economic reasons—and not for political reasons. He will take decisions about interest rates based on features of the British economy, and not of any other economy.
        The Government's economic policy has a clear pattern. It is based on fixity of purpose, clarity and transparency. We have established in the economic field a rhythm of good decision-making which has led to a resurgence of confidence. The Bill is vital to that process. It protects non-inflationary growth by helping to sustain sound public finances in a way which does the minimum of harm to incentives and to the operation of the markets. That is essential if the Government are to meet the Budget objective of lowering the PSBR by £6 billion in the current year, 1994–95, in comparison with the projection that we made before the Budget. We will do that without affecting marginal income tax rates and without raising the rate of taxation on business.
        I remind the House that the Bill is not just a catalogue of tax increases; it carries forward the process of building a tax system that fosters wealth creation. The new enterprise investment scheme—which encourages "business angels" to put their management skills as well as their money into the new small companies that are the basis of future economic development—won considerable praise from all parties in the Standing Committee.
        We have introduced some new taxes, to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred: the insurance premium tax and the air passenger duty. We have introduced them, however, in areas that—in comparison with practice in other countries—have arguably been under-taxed in the past. We are therefore ensuring that the tax burden is spread as widely as possible. Let me also remind the House that we have introduced rules allowing and promoting self-assessment in regard to tax.
        The measures in the Bill are fair: the extra burden of tax that it has been necessary to raise has been spread evenly across the pattern of income distribution. That has been backed up by one independent survey after another. We are confident, therefore, that these measures will not damage the progress of recovery.
        We have been careful to phase the tax increases to ensure that. Some of the impact of extra taxes was felt some time ago: excise duties were increased around Christmas. Other tax changes were introduced this month, and the two new taxes that I just mentioned will not come into force until the autumn. As I have said, we have spread the impact. My guess is that press expectations about the tax changes currently coming into effect greatly overplayed the impact that those changes will actually have on people's spending patterns, wage packets and salary slips. The recent impact on consumer confidence has been based not on actual experience of what tax rises are likely to bring, but on press reports and media speculation.
        Mr. Beith: The Chief Secretary has just made a very significant point. He suggests that the largest collection of

        929
        tax rises to occur in modern times has been spread in such a way that its impact on individuals will be much less than they have been led to fear, and that any disincentive effect on their willingness to work harder will therefore be very slight. Is he not opening the way to more tax rises generally, on the ground that they are never as bad as they are expected to be?
        Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Conservative Members believe in reducing taxes when that is prudent. Conservative Members do not attempt to advance any general argument in favour of raising taxes. But, when driven by fiscal prudence to introduce higher taxes in order to reduce public borrowing, our party takes care to ensure that the impact on incentives is minimal, and that phasing is sensible, so that the minimum damage is done to the process of recovery.
        The Bill confirms the policies that I have described. It adds to the credibility of those policies, and will therefore increase confidence. Today, we have seen new figures showing that in 1993–94 the public sector borrowing requirement—at about £46 billion—was some £4 billion lower than the level that we predicted. That, clearly, is in itself good news, but I am the first to add that the PSBR is still the highest that we have ever had, in cash terms.
        In the single month of March, the Government had to borrow £l1 billion, the largest amount that has ever been borrowed in any single month. Total borrowing for the year still amounts to £900 for every man, woman and child in the country. That does not lead me to alter our earlier forecast for the PSBR in the current year—about £38 billion. It is right to celebrate good news when it comes, but I do not believe that the figures suggest that any change in Government policy would be appropriate.
        The most significant factor in the achievement of that lower figure is not higher than expected tax receipts, but greater discipline in central Government spending and increased debt repayment by local authorities. Those factors cannot necessarily be repeated, and I therefore have no reason to believe that Government policy is in any way inappropriate at present. I believe that our current stance, and our determination to lower public sector borrowing on the course that we have set, should remain unchanged.
        Mr. John Townend: I agree that the undershoot of £4 billion in the PSBR is very good news, but is not my right hon. Friend rather worried about the size of the increase in March—£11 billion, as he has just told us? That is by far the highest increase in any month. Is not one of the problems the fact that, in national government—I found the same in local government—in the last month of the financial year each Department tries to spend every penny that it has so that it is fully spent up to its budget? If we could control that, could we not lower the PSBR by even more?
        Mr. Portillo: As my hon. Friend knows, the PSBR is the difference between two large amounts—receipts on the one hand, and spending on the other. The pattern is fairly well established, February and March generally being the largest months in terms of the PSBR.
        My hon. Friend has a point: there is an element of "spending up" at the end of the year. I deprecate that, and intend to bring the greatest possible pressure to bear on it.
        930
        My hon. Friend will, however, appreciate that other factors are involved. There is nothing unusual about seeing a dip in the earlier part of the financial year, and the largest amounts towards the end.
        If the policies that I have described make the Government's economic strategy perfectly clear—along with the fact that we are now seeing the benefits of recovery and of sustained low inflation—let me ask the House to consider what alternative has been presented by the Opposition. How have they measured up to the test of clarity and decisiveness that I have set this afternoon?
        It may be news to the House that the hon. Member for Peckham is responsible, on behalf of the Opposition, for the control of public spending pledges. How has she done in that regard? As far as I am aware, there is not a single instance of the hon. Lady's overruling any of her hon. Friends in connection with any of their promises, pledges and proposed schemes, whatever the expense involved.
        Sound public finances are what we demand from the hon. Lady; what we have had is the sound of public flannelling. The hon. Lady aspires to be the guardian of the nation's coffers, but the amendments that she tabled demonstrate that she is as committed as any other member of the Labour party to higher public spending and borrowing.
        That is especially notable, given that the hon. Lady was not a great contributor to our debates in the Standing Committee. [Interruption.] I showed a strong sense of delegation, but, even by the high standards that I set, the hon. Lady managed to delegate a considerable amount of the work to others. None the less, she was associated with amendments all of which would have increased public spending and borrowing. For example, her amendment to what was clause 28, on air passenger duty, would have raised the PSBR by £115 million this year and by £330 million next year.
        It might be thought that, if the hon. Lady did that in one amendment, she must have balanced it in another. Then, however, she tabled new clauses 1 and 2· Did those clauses offset her proposals for air passenger duty? No: they were designed to postpone the introduction of VAT on fuel and power, and would have raised public sector borrowing by £1 billion.
        As the hon. Lady is honest and straightforward, one would have assumed that she would find some other way in our debates to balance her proposed increases in the PSBR. But she tabled amendments to clause 72 to increase tax allowances and restrict the married couple's allowance to 25 per cent. rather than reduce it to 20 per cent. Those amendments would have increased the PSBR by £2 billion this year and by £3 billion next year. She tabled amendments on capital gains tax which would have jeopardised a full £3 billion of revenue from that tax.
        Throughout proceedings on the Bill, the Opposition's approach to public finances has been to find ways to reduce the Government's revenue and increase the PSBR.
        Mr. Calum Macdonald: If the Chief Secretary is the strict guardian of public finances, will he explain why the Government are this year abolishing sporting rates in Scotland? That measure will exclusively benefit large estates, but it will cost the Exchequer £2 million. In this climate of financial straitjackets, how is it that Scottish landowners can receive a handout of £2 million?
        Mr. Portillo: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to pursue that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
        If what I have outlined is the Opposition's approach to public finance, what about their sense of purpose? One would think that Labour had at least clear policies that it would consistently follow in our debates. Writing in the Labour party's London Forum document as recently as September 1993, the hon. Member for Peckham said:
        "Mortgage interest tax relief should be phased out for existing borrowers."
        We assumed that during the progress of the Bill Labour would table an amendment to put flesh on the bones of that proposal. But the hon. Lady's proposed amendment to clause 74 would have kept mortgage interest relief higher than the Government now intend, and that would have cost £1 billion this year and £2 billion next year. Labour is guilty not only of hopeless incompetence but of hopeless inconsistency.
        Ms Harman: Not only do hon. Members and people outside not believe what the Chief Secretary and his Treasury team say about their plans, but they believe that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what we have said. The quotes that the right hon. Gentleman attributed to me are certainly not mine. Whatever document he is talking about it was certainly never published. It is a scurrilous attempt to divert attention from the Government's betrayal of election promises.
        Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Lady has not heard of the Labour party's London Forum with which her name is associated and which produced the document from which I have quoted, the degree of disorganisation in the Labour party is even greater than I have been led to believe.
        Mr. Michael Stern: My right hon. Friend has listed the amendments that were tabled in Committee by the hon. Lady and her colleagues and the cost of them. Will he look at what it would have cost the Exchequer if the Government clauses to save money and against which the Opposition voted had been lost? Perhaps my right hon. Friend could write to members of the Committee about that.
        Mr. Portillo: That will be a most interesting piece of research, and I shall be happy to contribute to it. My hon. Friend is right to add to the examples of—
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Profligacy.
        Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend—of which Labour was guilty in Committee.
        The contrast between the two parties could not be more substantial. We have set out the path by which the public sector borrowing requirement will be steadily reduced towards balance. It will be close to zero in 1998–99. By 1997–98, the public sector current account deficit will have been eliminated. Throughout the period ahead, public spending as a proportion of our national income will be reduced. The net public sector debt to GDP ratio will peak in 1996–97 and reduce thereafter.
        The reference values that are set out in the Maastricht treaty requiring that the general Government financial deficit to GDP ratio should be lower than 3 per cent. will be met by 1996–97, and the reference value on debt itselfx2014;the proportion of general Government debt to GDP— should be lower than 60 per cent. That reference value will never be breached at any time in the coming year.
        932
        Our objectives for the economy, for spending and for borrowing are clearly set out. In Committee, Labour said nothing about what its policy would be. There have been nothing but infantile attempts to drive up the PSBR, and Labour has said nothing about the way in which it would guide the economy. There has been nothing but irresponsibility by contrast with the Government's transparent purpose of bringing our economy forward during a time of recovery and sustained low inflation.
        6.15 pm
        Ms Harman: The Bill is a milestone. In years to come it will be seen as marking a defining moment in the course of British politics. It is the moment when the truth about taxes has finally caught up with the Conservative party—the truth that the Conservatives have broken their promises; that their party is not the party of low tax but the party of unfair tax; and that their failure to cut taxes is because of their failure on the economy. People now know that on taxes and the economy they can never again trust the Tories.
        The Bill also marks failure and betrayal. On the Chief Secretary's own admission, the Conservative Government who before the election offered a successful economy have failed—and the price of that failure is to be paid through the tax increases in the Bill.
        Mr. John Townend: The hon. Lady is fulsome in her attacks on the Government for increasing taxation. Does not she agree that if the Government had not increased taxation in the Budget the alternative would have been to cut public spending? But every time the Government try to do that Labour criticises them and offers more and more proposals for increasing public spending. Is not the whole of the hon. Lady's policy hypocrisy?
        Ms Harman: It is hard to keep up with the hon. Gentleman. He stood and cheered when the Chancellor sat down after his Budget speech, but a month later he complained about it. Do we understand from his intervention that he is now back in favour of the tax increases? If he is, the Chief Secretary will be glad to have him as an ally once again.
        There have been two Budgets since the Tories won the last general election—two Budgets of failure and betrayal. As the economy struggles into recovery—and we hope that it will recover—confidence in the Government slumps. The Chancellor, who replaced the one who was sacked for lack of credibility, now has himself no credibility. Why should anyone believe anything that the Chancellor says? First, the Tories promised to cut taxes. But they put them up, and the Chancellor said that they never actually promised to cut them. Of course they did.
        In the Chancellor's personal election address, he told his constituents:
        "Only the Conservatives believe in keeping taxation down."
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told his constituents in Enfield in his election address:
        "The Conservatives want to cut your taxes."
        How is that for fixity of purpose, Mr. Deputy Speaker?We have had something new. We have had the Conservatives' objectives, not met; their intentions, not achieved; their aims, unfulfilled; and now we have something new on the political agenda—it is never delivery on their promises. Now we are offered a fixity of purpose.

        933
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury demonstrated fixity of purpose when he told constituents at Enfield, when asking for their vote:
        "The Conservatives want to cut your taxes".
        The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his election address, told his constituents, no doubt showing the same fixity of purpose:
        "We promise to hold taxes low".
        However, the truth has caught up with the Tories on their claim to be the party of low tax. The Conservative party is no such thing. The burden of direct and indirect taxes on a family on average income in 1978–79 was 32·2 per cent. This year, the total tax burden on that family will be 35 per cent. of their income.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Lady rehearsed by quoting from those election addresses in Committee. Given that the public sector borrowing requirement was nearly £50 billion, what would the hon. Lady have done? [Interruption.] Would she have left taxation as it was, or would she have cut public expenditure or increased borrowing? We need to know an answer to that if she is seriously involved in the debate.
        Ms Harman: The people in the country and the hon. Gentleman's electors need to know why the Conservatives failed to tell the truth before the last election; why they promised to cut taxes and put them up; why they promised to be the party of sound public finances and achieved record public borrowing.
        The Chief Secretary only—
        Several hon. Members rose—
        Ms Harman: I will press on for a few moments.
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke at some length about the effect of the tax increases on the markets. He mentioned the tax increases on business and spoke about them at some length. He mentioned the tax increases and the effect on the incentives for the highest paid people. Yet he hardly spent any time speaking about the big issue of concern throughout the country—the effect of the tax increases on ordinary taxpayers—except to say that £10 a week in extra taxes, £500 a year extra taxes, from a Government that promised to cut taxes, is insignificant.
        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The hon. Lady spoke of this Finance Bill, and of this Budget being a defining moment. Can she recall a single Finance Bill or Budget in the past decade when the Opposition's strength of feeling about that Budget has been so great that they were unable to keep the debate going in the time allotted to it?
        Ms Harman: The right hon. Gentleman makes a trivial point, which the—
        Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent.
        Ms Harman: Yes; because the issue of concern for many people up and down the country, who feel a real sense of betrayal, is how they will find the extra money they will have to pay in taxes to a Government who were specifically elected on a pledge to cut taxes.
        934
        Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary might try to sweep the truth under the carpet, the truth has caught up with the Tories in the newspaper headlines. Let me quote some of them:
        "Tories admit: you paid less tax under Labour".
        That is from The Independent on Sunday.
        "Tax burden on families to hit record levels, Treasury warns ministers".
        That is from the Sunday Times.
        "We tax more than Labour, Tories admit".
        That is from the Sunday Telegraph. From The Sun we hear:
        "The Chancellor can't deny the Tories are taking a greater slice of your income than Labour did".
        The truth has caught up with the Tories, and people see it not only in their newspaper headlines, but in their pay packets. They see it not only in the newspaper headlines, but in their gas and electricity bills, and in their mortgage payments.
        Mr. George Walden: The hon. Lady has been the object of brutal—I should have thought rather hurtful—attacks by my hon. Friends about Labour spending pledges, so I should like to come to her defence by giving her an opportunity to endorse the wise, honest and frank reflections of her hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), about the future affordability of the old-age pension. I am giving her a chance to endorse his sober and sensible reflections on that subject, and show herself to be realistic about future levels of public spending in this country.
        Ms Harman: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security. He is anxious that we should have an open, honest and straightforward debate, which has at its heart the interests of pensioners now and in the future. That was at the core of his concerns.
        The truth is catching up with the Chancellor, as nervous Tory Back Benchers mutter against him behind their hands in the Tea Room. Those who hailed him—[Interruption.]—as a hero in November and waved their Order Papers when he sat down at the end of his Budget speech—where are they now? Those who hailed the Chancellor as the next leader—where are they now? The Tory Back Benchers certainly do not support the Chancellor now. The welcome party for the Budget in November has become a wake for the Finance Bill in April.
        The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who intervened earlier, the Chair of the Tory Back-Bench Finance Committee, is one of the hon. Members who stood and waved Order Papers after the Chancellor's Budget. We know that, because he told us. In the Budget debate, he told the House proudly:
        "I was one of those hon. Members who cheered at the Budget… I congratulate the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary on their efforts".
        He looked, misty-eyed, to the future and said:
        "I think that the Budget will go down as the most important of this Parliament".—[Official Report, 7 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 171 & 176.]
        I agree with him. How right he was, but for rather different reasons than he expected.
        Soon the congratulations turned to complaints.
        Mr. John Townend rose—
        Ms Harman: By 23 January 1994, the hon. Member for Bridlington, who is rising to intervene, was complaining loudly and publicly. Gone were the congratulations. Instead he was saying:
        "If we lose our claim to be the party of low taxation we lose a critical asset".
        The Chancellor who was hailed as a hero is now blamed for failure. I notice that the Chief Secretary praised the previous Chancellor fulsomely; however, he did not praise the current Chancellor—no doubt because he wants to be the next one himself. Although the Tories have lost for ever their claim to be the party of low tax, they remain true to their instinct for unfair tax. No doubt the Chief Secretary is hoping to take advantage of the lack of credibility that the Chancellor now has. As The Sunday Times delicately put it, the Chancellor's reputation is
        "in the gutter along with the Prime Minister's popularity".
        Although the Tories have completely abandoned their fixity of purpose for low tax, they remain true to their instinct for unfair tax.
        Mr. Townend: This is an important Budget. It is a Budget that would not have appeared under a Labour Government; a Budget that sets out a strategy to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement to zero. I stand by what I said: if the Conservative party in the long term becomes a party of high taxation, we are finished—but we will not become the party of high taxation. It is our policy to reduce taxation. I forecast that, by the next election, taxes will be down again.
        Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman has failed to ask himself who increased the public sector borrowing requirement in the first place. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was wrong to say that this Budget and the Government's taxation policies are fair, because the Tories are unfair when it comes to tax. When they gave out tax cuts in the 1980s, they gave most to the richest.
        Now that it comes to panicking and taking them back, they take most from middle and low-income families. The top 1 per cent. of earners, with incomes of more than £120,000, had 30 per cent. of the tax cuts, but are paying only 4 per cent. of the tax rises. Only those on £64,000 a year or more are paying less tax than they would have been in 1979. Everyone else is paying more.
        The growing burden of taxes on spending hits hardest those who can least afford it. This year, a family on average earnings will pay £1,140 in VAT—nearly 6 per cent. of its income. That is nearly twice as much VAT as it paid under the last Labour Government, and the Chancellor has said that his instinct is to extend VAT still further.
        While the Government clobber those on middle and low incomes, they fail to close the tax loopholes that allow the super-rich to get away without paying their fair share of tax. Some £110 million in tax-free executive share options has gone to the directors of privatised electricity and water companies alone. That is just one of the many tax loopholes which the Government have failed to close in the Bill.
        Mr. David Willetts: If the hon. Lady is so keen on closing tax loopholes, why did she vote against the clause that dealt with the abuse whereby people were paid in gold bars? Why did the Labour party oppose ending that abuse?
        Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman could not know about our objections to that clause, because the guillotine
        936
        prevented debate. Our objection was that the Bill did not go far enough in closing that tax loophole, and we tabled a new clause that went further than the one which the Government finally and reluctantly presented.
        The Tories' priorities were clearly demonstrated in Committee. There was not an empty seat on the Tory side when we discussed the rights of accountants, whereas glazed eyes and cynical disinterest greeted the points raised about how tax affects ordinary people. Tories argued heatedly among themselves when we debated the effect on top rate taxpayers of changes in capital gains tax, but they showed indifference when we debated how the lowest earners will suffer from tax rises.
        The Tory members of the Finance Bill Committee well represented their party's true interests. They spoke animatedly and at length when they had financial vested interests as directors or consultants to commercial organisations, but were silent as their Government put up taxes and made a mockery of their election addresses.
        We did not, however, have silence from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who, unfortunately, is not here today. The Chair of the Committee had to rebuke him three times for shouting. He was protesting that it was out of order for me to remind the Committee that he had promised to cut the taxes of his Dover constituents.
        The truth has finally caught up with the Tories. People are dismayed at the extra taxes they must pay, and angry because the Government are throwing good money after bad. It is not as if the tax increases will fund a transformation of the national health service, the modernisation of our railway system or investment in education. People know that, while the Tories are raising taxes, they are cutting public investment. Since 1979, investment in schools, hospitals and transport has been cut by more than a quarter as a percentage of gross domestic product. Those tax increases are to pay not for investment in the future but for the Tory mistakes of the past.
        What the Government have not lacked in the past is public money: £118 billion in North sea oil receipts have been wasted; and £55 billion in privatisation receipts have been squandered to pay for the dole queue. Unemployment now costs every family in the country the equivalent of £20 a week. Every unemployed person costs £9,000 a year in benefits and lost taxes. Since 1979, unemployment has cost the nation £280 billion, and the Government are now taking money out of people's pay packets and taxing pensioners' fuel bills to pay for their borrowing to finance the dole queue.
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury admits that the Conservatives are not the party of low taxes, but says that, first and foremost, they are the party of sound public finance. But they are not, any more than they are the party of low tax. As the Chief Secretary was forced to admit, today's figures show that this year's borrowing has topped £45 billion, which is the highest PSBR in UK history. It is more than was ever borrowed by the last Labour Government. Last year, central Government borrowing amounted to 7.5 per cent. of GDP, compared with only 5 per cent., which was the highest level of borrowing as a percentage of GDP under the last Labour Government.
        Moreover, for the first time since records began, the Government have broken the golden rule on Government borrowing—
        Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady's figures do not compare like with like.
        Ms Harman: I am comparing like with like. I am not comparing investment in the nationalised industries but looking at central Government borrowing, excluding local council borrowing. That 7.5 per cent. of GDP that the Government are borrowing is entirely accounted for by what they are spending. But they are not investing. For the first time since records began, they have broken the golden rule on Government borrowing, which is not to borrow more than they publicly invest. More than half the PSBR now finances current expenditure. How can that be "fixity of purpose" from "the party of sound public finance"?
        The Government have failed on public finances, because they have failed on the economy. People can see with their own eyes what is happening in the economy. I admire the brass neck of the Chief Secretary, who, in one and the same speech, says, "We are entitled to put taxes up and breach our election promises, because we got it entirely wrong about the economy in 1992 and thought that a recovery was coming, but it was not. But, actually, a recovery is coming now." Why should anyone believe anything that the Government say about the economy? People believe what they see with their own eyes.
        Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Lady draws attention to the cost of unemployment. I hope that she accepts that Conservative Members want to reduce the cost of unemployment and the unemployment figures. Why does she not refer to the drop of 250,000 in the unemployment figures in the past 15 or 16 months? Why does she not answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that, in all the countries of Europe currently or previously under socialist Governments—Spain is currently under a socialist Government, and France had a socialist Government until recently—unemployment is higher? What magic solution does the British Labour party have which those countries have ignored?
        Ms Harman: We remember only too well the Government saying that unemployment was a price worth paying. It is simply no good the hon. Gentleman saying that it is worse everywhere else, because people know from their experience that the British economy is falling behind. Comparable figures on growth, employment, manufacturing output, exports and skill levels—all important economic indicators of the underlying strength of the economy—show that the Tories have allowed this country to fall behind.
        Since 1979, our growth rate has been lower than that of the US, Japan, Canada, France, Germany and Italy. Those are the countries to which we should compare ourselves, whereas the Chief Secretary compares us only with Spain. While, since 1979, employment has grown in those countries, it has shrunk here. Since 1979, we have had the lowest rate of export growth of any major industrialised country. We have the lowest levels of skills of any major industrialised country.
        The Conservative party said that it stood for low taxes, and put taxes up. The Conservative party said that it stood for economic confidence, and devastated our economy. The Conservative party said that it stood for sound public finance, and hit record public borrowing. The Finance Bill has shown the Conservative party to be not the party of low taxes, not the party of economic confidence, not the party
        938
        of sound public finances—just the party in office but not in power; a party for which the question of competitiveness means competing leadership candidates.
        After this Finance Bill, no one will trust the current Chancellor again. He did not tell the truth at the election. He made promises that he could not keep and then denied that he had made those promises. He did not tell the truth about tax increases and would not tell the truth about living standards. He is still not telling the truth about the economy, but the truth has caught up with him, no matter how he has tried to evade it.
        People do not want to hear any more fairy tales from the Government—they want to know the truth. They can trust Labour—[Laughter.] The Labour party has told them the truth about the economy and taxes, and they know that. They can trust Labour to take action to ensure growth, to tax fairly and to invest wisely. People know that, through the Conservative Budgets, they are paying the price of past Tory failures. They know that, for the future, they can look to Labour.
        6.41 pm
        Mr. Christopher Gill: I thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Traditionally, I have stood up on Third Reading of the Finance Bill to draw to the attention of Ministers one of the greatest absurdities of our tax system—the means by which we apparently raise far more money than we need.
        I shall explain what I mean by quoting from the Red Book and the published analysis of public expenditure. This year I can do so only on the basis of the figures for last year. I have, on several previous occasions, made a similar sort of speech, but the Treasury has now shot my fox and no longer publishes appendix D to the analysis of expenditure from which I gleaned much of my information.
        I can talk only about 1992–93, when thé outturn of the six inland revenue taxes—income tax, corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and stamp duty—amounted to £76.1 billion. For the same year, according to the public expenditure analysis, Cmnd 2219, published in January 1993, the 47 reliefs and allowances against the same six inland revenue taxes totalled £75.8 billion. The net to the Exchequer was almost the same as the allowances that had been made against those six taxes.
        I draw two conclusions from that. The tax system is still being used for the purposes of social engineering. If that were not the case, the standard rate of income tax, instead of being 25p or 20p in the pound, would be half that figure. Having made a similar speech on four successive occasions and never having been challenged on that point, I think that I am entitled to believe that I am right.
        Mr. Portillo indicated assent.
        Mr. Gill: I thank my right hon. Friend.
        As we have more time this year than is customary to discuss Third Reading of the Finance Bill, I should first like to say to the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Finance Bill Committee that the thanks of the House are due to them for all the hard work, effort, time and concentration that they have put into bringing to the House the 453 pages of the current Bill.
        I also want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his positive, robust and

        939
        lucid exposition of Government economic policy. I also welcome today's news on the public sector borrowing requirement, which my right hon. Friend said was £4 billion better than originally forecast for the 12 months just ended.
        To Opposition Members, I say that the economic indicators for the British economy are good. Interest rates are at their lowest since 1972. The inflation rate in the year 1993 was the lowest for 30 years. Exchange rates are competitive, and have therefore stimulated greater export volumes. Unemployment is trending downwards. The housing market is improving, and there are welcome signs of increasing optimism and activity in the manufacturing sector.
        I shall concentrate my remarks on the wealth-creating sector of our economy, and the interface which that has with the Treasury. I also have one or two words of advice for the Conservative party. I wish to talk about the role of Government in the context of today's debate on the Finance Bill.
        In that context, the role of Government is threefold. First, the Government must resolutely set their face against adding overhead costs to businesses. Secondly, they must work hard at removing the obstacles to wealth creation that have become enshrined in legislation. Thirdly, they must create the conditions in which business can prosper. In order for business to prosper, we need a fiscal policy that stimulates investment and business activity, and gibes an incentive to people who invest and work in business.
        Mr. Beith: In view of the hon. Gentleman's first point, is he satisfied with what the Government have done on statutory sick pay? Many people in business feel that an unreasonable burden has now been placed on them.
        Mr. Gill: I shall turn to that point immediately, and shall not keep the right hon. Gentleman in suspense one moment longer. That was exactly what I was about to talk about—the importance of controlling costs on businesses.
        We want to minimise the cost burden on businesses, which is why we set our face against the social charter and rejected it. But later tonight, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the draft Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations come before the House. Their effect will be to reduce the rate of reimbursement for administering and paying statutory and maternity pay benefits from 104.5 per cent. to 92 per cent. By any reckoning, that adds costs to businesses.
        It is necessary to contain the bureaucratic burden on businesses. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Government are committed to deregulation. They are soon to bring a deregulation Bill to the House for Report and Third Reading. Consequent on that, a Committee on deregulation will be established in the House. The public expectation is that there will then be a bonfire of controls. But the Finance Bill before us is 453 pages long. It looks as though we are in the business of telling people to do as we say, not as we do.
        I was interested to read a snippet in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph:
        "Senior Treasury officials are struggling to restore morale after a confidential staff survey uncovered widespread discontent over the way the organisation is run. Staff complained of … too much bureaucracy."
        My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary may feel caught
        940
        in a pincer movement between myself and his officials, who all say that it is vital that we reduce the burdens of bureaucracy.
        I invite my hon. Friend to consider just one lesson from the private sector. Any successful business man will know that, to sell a product successfully, one first has to establish a brand image. Opposition Members may say otherwise, but that is the fact of the matter, and you cannot take it away from us. [Interruption.] I am talking to you now.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be talking to me.
        Mr. Gill: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would certainly take greater delight in doing that than in addressing my remarks to Opposition Members.
        The Conservative party has a very strong brand image. It has the brand image—
        Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the punch line before I give way.
        We have a brand image as the party of low taxation. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will challenge me on that point, yet my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) spelled it out to the House: that we are absolutely determined to get taxes down. I share his confidence that we will do so before the next general election.
        Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in Scotland, an opinion poll in a respectable newspaper, the Herald, stated quite clearly that Tory party support was at a mind-boggling 13 per cent.? Is that the brand image that they are creating for the people of Scotland and the rest of Britain?
        Mr. Gill: I am about to make two comments that address that very point.
        I am not confining my remarks to the sheer fiscal policy embodied in the Finance Bill: I am trying to draw attention to one important factor which affects the electoral prospects of the Conservative party—the need to be consistent.
        Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Gill: I shall finish my point first. I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman until I had done so, as I shall now have to start from scratch.
        The lesson from the private sector is that, for a company to be successful in selling its products, it first has to establish its brand image. I have explained that the Conservative party has a jolly good brand image. Secondly, it must advertise. It is difficult for us politicians, regardless of which side we are on, to avoid advertising. Many Members of Parliament are on television, in the newspapers or on the radio practically every day. I do not indulge in that, as I am a bit of a shrinking violet.
        Thirdly, it is essential to have a consistent product. I am not saying anything about the quality of the product, but simply that it has to be consistent.
        Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Gill: I shall give way in a moment, as I have already told the hon. Lady.

        941
        One of our difficulties in the Conservative party at the moment is that, on the one hand, we have been promising to deliver deregulation and lower taxes, and on the other hand there have been certain inconsistencies. We have to put right that aspect of our sales strategy. We have the brand image and the advertising; let us concentrate on consistency.
        Ms Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am listening with interest to what he is saying, particularly about consistency. At the last general election, in his literature to his local electorate, he said that the Conservatives would reduce personal taxation, yet today we are discussing a Budget which increases levels of personal taxation and indirect taxation to the greatest extent since the second world war. How is that consistent, and will he apologise to his constituents for the record of the Government?
        Mr. Gill: Surely the hon. Lady does not need reminding that, in 1979, when the Conservative Government came to power, the top rate of personal taxation was potentially 98p in the pound. The only reason why it was no higher was that, if they had taken another tuppence from those people, there would have been absolutely no point in their working at all.
        The Conservative party have proved in government, without any shadow of a doubt—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady can continue interjecting from a seated position for as long as she likes, but she cannot deny that we have brought the standard rate of tax down from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent., with a commitment to reduce it to 20 per cent. We have brought the top rate of tax down from potentially 98 per cent. to 40 per cent., and everyone in the country knows it.
        The hon. Lady knows full well that the Conservative party were re-elected two years ago because the Opposition were offering the opposite. We can flog this horse for much longer, but I shall still cross the finishing line before the Opposition.
        The Conservative party is criticised for the level of unemployment and for inadequate levels of investment. We know that there is a balance of payments deficit, and reference has already been made to the public sector borrowing requirement.
        There is only one way out; we have to trade ourselves out of trouble. That means that we have to recognise—not that we do not already—that trade, commerce and industry are the engine of our economy. We have to recognise the need to keep that engine fuelled and lubricated, and the good sense of allowing business to reinvest the biggest possible share of the profits it generates. That leads to the virtuous circle of ploughed-back profits leading to greater investment, greater competitiveness, reduced unemployment and an improved balance of payments.
        I accept that it is not the way that the Opposition parties would go; their policy has always been to tax and tax again. Our policy is to bring taxes down. On that basis, there is no need to pick winners. There is no need for Ministers or Departments to indulge in the fantasy that politicians can pick winners; the winners pick themselves if they are allowed to plough back the profits they generate.
        The dynamic of unquoted companies is refuelled by ploughing back the profits. That is because the
        942
        entrepreneur, who is invariably ambitious for the continued success of his business, recognises that its growth and development is best served by constantly improving the quality and value of its assets. There is no justification for taxing that seedcorn, which would otherwise be used to grow the business faster, bearing in mind the positive financial benefit to the whole economy of successful businesses making substantial contributions, as they do, to our national coffers by way of national non-domestic rates, pay-as-you-earn, national insurance and social security savings—quite apart from the value of wages and pensions to all those employed in those enterprises.
        Conservative Governments since 1979 have demonstrated that lower personal tax rates stimulate higher tax revenues. By the same token, even lower corporate tax rates would stimulate higher levels of business investment and increased competitiveness, to the long-term benefit of employment prospects and import substitution.
        Finally, if the engine of our economy stalls, suddenly none of us will be going anywhere. How very much more sensible it is to ensure that the engine is kept not just ticking over, but running at peak revs to generate greater business activity, a more competitive industry and a market for the only product which 55 million people living in these islands have to sell—which is our labour.
        7 pm
        Mr. Beith: This is an enormous two-volume Finance Bill. We should remember that the Government have had two bites of the cherry because there have been two Finance Bills in the past 12 months, which amounts to five Bills in three years. Presumably the Bill will come in three volumes next time; the growth in the scale of legislation goes on and on.
        That raises questions about how we handle finance legislation and this year there has been a change in the way in which it has been handled. For the first time in recent years, a guillotine has been imposed on the Bill. I think that the timetable has worked reasonably successfully. It would have been better if we had been able to make adjustments to the allocation of the time for debate on the clauses as we discovered what was needed. But, broadly speaking, I believe that it has worked reasonably successfully. It has certainly not presented any severe problems and need not have led to a failure to debate important sections of the Bill.
        The weakness in scrutiny of the Bill does not result from the timetable; it results from the highly complex and technical character of a large part of the Bill's content. This material does not lend itself to the sort of discussion that we usually have in the Standing Committee. It would be better handled by a Select Committee procedure in which one could question the people who actually know what the Bill is about.
        We have a familiar ritual in Finance Bill Committee of hon. Members pressing Ministers about points which neither the Member nor the Minister understands fully. Each is dependent on the notes which are being passed from either civil servants or outside advisers. It is not a sensible way of discussing the most complex parts of the Bill. That is why I support the view that we should have a taxes management Bill which deals with the more complex matters and that that Bill should be handled, at least in part, by Select Committee procedure.

        943
        This Finance Bill does not contain only a lot of technical material. It contains tax increases—to which I will refer in a moment—and two new taxes. Neither of the taxes was the subject of consultation. There were no Green Papers about the feasibility of an airport tax and there were no Green Papers about the way in which an insurance tax might be introduced. It was therefore difficult to digest and consider successfully the new taxes while debating the Bill.
        The very mechanism by which both taxes will be collected has been changed fundamentally between the Committee and Report stages. In the case of the insurance tax, the rate at which the tax is collected has changed, too. I welcome the fact that such adjustments were made, but they illustrate that this is not a very satisfactory way to deal with completely new taxes.
        Neither of these taxes is market-sensitive. People are not able—it would not be a problem if they were—to rush out and take out insurance policies on a grand scale in order to defeat the effects of the Bill. It would have been possible to put out the proposals for consultation before they became taxes. I would have argued, as I did during debate on the Bill, that it was not a good idea to tax insurance and that the airport tax would have damaging consequences for sections of the community.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that greater consultation with the insurance industry might have served a purpose. Nevertheless, I would like to correct a small point that the hon. Gentleman made. Pressure from the Association of British Insurers and from Committee members ensured that, by the time we considered the clause in Committee, the Government had already clarified many of the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The clarification came before discussion in the Committee.
        Mr. Beith: That is a fair point. A great deal of effort was made with considerable speed to secure changes. The hon. Gentleman and others were involved in bringing about the changes and I think that we can all claim some credit for having secured improvements in the Bill in Committee. But it does not seem to be a sensible way to introduce new taxes.
        The Bill also marks the end of the Lawson reforms. A significant part of the Bill removes the indexation loss provision. It had been hailed by the former Chancellor as not only logical, but a matter of justice, that losses be treated as though inflation had not occurred. Losses were treated symmetrically with gains.
        The reform was widely welcomed at the time, but it transpired that the then Chancellor, Lord Lawson, had not appreciated the incredible scale of future losses to Revenue which could result. Those losses amounted to some £3 billion—a much larger figure than anybody outside Government seems prepared to acknowledge. Indeed, so sacred has the £3 billion figure become that it was used in debate today by the Chief Secretary, who accused the Labour party of carving a further £3 billion hole in public finances by criticising the removal of the indexation loss provision.
        I do not accept that figure. If such a huge hole can be driven in public finances, the problem should be addressed by more specific measures, not by the total removal of the reform. If, as the Government make out, the major threat of lost revenue comes not from individuals but from
        944
        companies creating and using shelf companies and subsidiary companies to offload capital gains and thereby evade tax, the problem should be addressed specifically instead of overturning what was generally thought to be an important and valuable reform.
        Mr. Stern: I am very interested in the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but I wonder whether he will accept that in the past specific anti-avoidance measures have not necessarily proved effective. For example, I draw his attention to Labour's development land tax, which contained numerous anti-avoidance measures, all of which had the effect of simply bending the market rather than stopping the avoidance of tax.
        Mr. Beith: That is a fair point, but I do not think that it needs to apply to the logical way of dealing with gains and losses. I am always suspicious of arrangements which allow the Government to benefit from inflation—in which it is to the Government's advantage to see a fairly high rate of inflation. Too many things in our system have encouraged Governments to tolerate and stimulate inflation in the past.
        Mr. Gill: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves from the subject of capital gains, I invite him to consider that, potentially, capital gains might this year be worth about £3.3 billion to the Exchequer, but, by the time all the reliefs and allowances are subtracted, capital gains will net £1 billion. That is a quite serious situation. What does the right hon. Gentleman think about the cost to the nation of the accountants, solicitors, consultants and tax experts who have been employed in the process of reducing potential capital gains of £3.3 billion to a net £1 billion? Would not all those brains have been better employed in the productive sector of the economy to boost Britain's productivity and create better and more competitive products to sell on world markets?
        Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman undoubtedly has my sympathy on that point. But I fear that the same accountants and tax advisers will now be engaged in finding new ways of dealing with this law. What could be more helpful to them than to produce a Finance Bill of these dimensions?
        It is impossible for taxpayers to know what to do about their tax positions when they are confronted with complex provisions. I fear that the Government's choice of such complex legislation has added to the huge industry which the hon. Gentleman understandably believes might be more profitably and productively directed elsewhere in the economy. I wish that we could achieve the objective that he sets out.
        I turn to what I believe to be the main point of the Bill. The Bill is supposed to deal with the mess which the Government have created. It is supposed to deal with the public sector borrowing requirement which has resulted from the recession being so deep and prolonged. Together with the earlier Finance Bill, the legislation involves the biggest tax increase in modern times. It provides a calendar of tax increases which will carry us through this tax year and into the next.
        For example, there is an 8 per cent. and 17.5 per cent. value added tax on fuel. The Government should say now that they will not go to 17.5 per cent. VAT. They will not even help by providing measures which will ease people's problems in confronting fuel bills.

        945
        I have an Energy Conservation Bill which is due to be considered on Friday. Having said initially that they were in favour of the principle of the Bill, the Government have tabled more than 200 amendments in an attempt to block one of the measures which would help people to cut their VAT bills by using less fuel. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is one of the culprits in this ludicrous attempt to block a very sensible measure.
        The calendar of tax increases continues with the extra 1 p on national insurance contributions. That is a particularly unfair way of extracting extra taxation because it starts at a lower level of income than income tax and stops at a low level. It imposes no additional taxation on those with higher levels of income and, as a result, it is borne most heavily by those with lower income levels. It is not a fair way of dealing with the Government's financial problems.
        The Bill also includes the freezing of personal allowances and the reduction in mortgage interest tax relief and the married couple's allowance. Of course, I have argued for a phasing out of mortgage interest tax relief and have usually been bitterly attacked by the Conservatives for doing so. However, they are now doing the job for us and doing it more drastically than I had proposed because their plans will attack existing mortgage holders and are not being phased in for new mortgage holders.
        The insurance tax will bear heavily on people who need to insure, especially because of the impact of crime in the cities. The increasing cost of premiums will mean an especially unwelcome addition to their bills at a time when we should be encouraging people to be insured against risk.
        The airport tax will inflict particular hardship in the highlands and islands, where air journeys are often matters of urgency and not the luxury that they are in other parts of the country—they are the only way of getting somewhere quickly. The burden will be unfairly and unevenly distributed.
        Where are these taxes going? They are not being used for investment or being spent on education. The Conservatives have not become converts to the view that high taxation is needed to improve public services; their view is that taxes are needed to pay for the mess that they have made. Under the Conservatives, taxes are high, but not because of the provision of better public services—they are high because of the mismanagement of the economy and of the prolonged and deep recession.
        Mr. Forman: I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman's last remark pass without making an observation. He asked where the taxes were going and said that they were not being used for education. Spending per pupil is the right measure to use. I believe that education spending is now at the record level of about £30 billion across the United Kingdom, so he cannot sustain his argument.
        Mr. Beith: The increase in expenditure arose from commitments made immediately before the election, not from the policy now being pursued by the Government. It is perhaps worth pointing out that state and local authority-run schools are having their budgets squeezed so that the Government's favoured projects—grantmaintained, opted-out schools—get extra assistance. Anyone who works in a school can provide ample evidence
        946
        that schools are attempting to do a difficult and demanding job without sufficient resources. That is why we believe that it is essential to secure improvements in education spending. We told people during the election campaign that, if necessary, we would increase taxes in order to secure those improvements.
        Mr. Clive Betts: Has not the Liberal party's policy altered slightly? Instead of arguing for 1p on tax for education, the latest suggestion is 1 p off income tax. That is very different.
        Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Conservatives have increased taxes by the equivalent of 7p in the meantime and we have to bear that in mind. If we could possibly secure the additional spending without a further increase in taxation, we would of course do so because I fear that the overall effect of the new taxes will be to put recovery at risk. The Government have increased taxes by much more than we contemplated and, as the Chancellor admitted in his meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England, there is a risk that the increases will stall recovery. I certainly hope that we do not have to retain taxes at this level but that we can make use of some of the taxation to increase expenditure on education.
        The Conservative party has become a high tax party for reasons of mismanagement, whereas the Labour party, curiously, appears to want to be seen as the low tax party. It is actively saying that taxes will be lower under Labour. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is trying to prove that point with the council tax figures and, at various points in our recent debates, it has seemed that that is what members of Labour's Front Bench wanted to argue.
        The Chief Secretary was bitterly criticising Labour Front Benchers for their expensive amendments to the Bill, but I examined the amendments that we discussed yesterday. After a great deal of debate about how much Labour wanted to increase spending an investment in infrastructure, I found that Labour was seeking to afford relief of £100 a year to a company that built a railway. That is a derisory figure. Labour had tabled the amendment in question because it wanted to debate an issue without committing itself to a great deal of expenditure.
        The Labour party is entitled to take whatever view it likes, but I believe that many voters who have traditionally voted Labour will tend to think that, if the party is not about getting better public services and, in some cases, having to pay a bit more tax for them, it is not about very much at all. It is very hard to imagine how one is to get people committed to a political cause in opposition to the traditional Conservative view if they are not offered the prospect of better public services and if it is not accepted that it may cost more in taxes to get those improved services. The Labour party may prove to be right, but I beg to differ.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman's case, he should point out that, at the previous election, we offered modest tax increases funded by those most able to pay. We also offered modest improvements in public services, so we have not strayed quite as far from our agenda as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
        Mr. Beith: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. Modest improvements were offered, and some increases, which were not terribly well targeted, were also mentioned. As a result of that experience, the Labour party has now

        947
        decided that it dare not do the same again; it has decided that one must tell people that taxes will be cut, whatever one anticipates will really happen. The Government have proved that it can be done, but I hope that it cannot be done on a regular basis, that the Conservatives will not get away with it again and that the Labour party, were it to attempt so foolish a course, would not get away with it. One has to be honest with people and tell them that better public services may mean higher taxes.
        Mr. Brown: I am not sure that I need to be advised by —of all parties—the Liberal party to be honest with people. The great crime that the Labour party committed was to be honest about its tax policies before the general election. The Conservatives told lies about our tax policies and, as we now discover, also told lies about their own. It is a painful issue for me and my party and we do not need to be reminded of it by the right hon. Gentleman. The fact that we are not keeping a running tax and spending total in opposition to the Government's ever-changing tax and spending policies does not mean that we shall not put our case clearly and precisely before the electorate at the next general election, exactly as we did last time.
        Mr. Beith: Let us wait and see. There is an interesting argument about how parties position themselves before elections. We certainly intend to go into the next election as we did into the previous one, telling people the truth if we believe that taxes might have to be increased. However, we do not know what the level of taxes will be when the next election campaign starts. We do not know whether the Conservatives will succeed in knocking 1p or 2p off income tax at the last minute, having taken a huge amount in taxation out of people's pockets in the meantime.
        The Chief Secretary made much of inflation being low and retail prices holding, but he must recognise that it is in part a consequence of the slowness of recovery. Retailers are holding prices because they have to—they will not stay in business if they increase prices. The phenomenon of the continual sale has been evident in our high streets for a considerable time. In fact, there have been two phenomena in our high streets: the first is the continual sale and the second is the empty shop.
        Very few of us represent constituencies in which high streets are not well supplied with empty shops or with shops on short leases to charities and in which the remaining retail premises are having to live by sales. While that is good news for the consumer, it poses the hidden risk that inflation will increase sharply if we ever reach the stage where retailers can start to recoup some profits. Smaller retailers in particular cannot go on indefinitely as they are: they are struggling to stay in business and make a living.
        Inflation is a problem that will return and interest rate policy has to take account of that. I counsel those who think that a further 0.5 per cent. cut in interest rates at any moment will get the recovery moving to bear in mind the fact that there is a danger further down the line and that the efficacy of further interest rate reductions can easily be exaggerated. I am not saying that we could not achieve another small change at some point in the coming months, but we have to be careful, and we should not get over-excited about its effects.
        Of course, any reduction would be offset by the effect on pensioners and those living on limited capital whose spending power has already been severely cut. Many of
        948
        them were dependent on the rather high rates of interest that prevailed when they decided to move into a sheltered housing scheme, for example, and assumed a level of income that has not been maintained.
        The Chancellor thinks that the Bill has put right public finances once and for all. Nobody believes that. The Treasury Select Committee poured cold water on that somewhat grandiose suggestion. But the Bill has changed once and for all the idea that the Conservatives can be relied on to hold down taxes or to keep their promises. When they promised to cut taxes, they knew that there would be a huge borrowing requirement, estimated at £30 billion, so they cannot have been serious even when they made the promise.
        This is the longest Finance Bill ever. For taxpayers, its length is like that of the supermarket till receipt; the longer the piece of paper the bigger the bottom line, and the greater the cost to them. And what are taxpayers getting in return? They are getting years of neglect of the education system, of the transport system, of manufacturing industry and of the energy efficiency of our housing stock. When the Government are eventually bundled out of office they will leave an economy sadly ill-equipped for the future.
        7.20 pm
        Mr. Forman: As I listened to the Opposition speeches, I was reminded, slightly irreverently, of the parallels between what goes on in the House and what goes on at the opera. One parallel is the fact that it is never over until the fat lady sings.
        Mr. Derek Enright: She is in the other place.
        Mr. Forman: We look forward to hearing the less than fat lady, indeed the slim and svelte lady, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), singing to the House and to the country fully and frankly about the various commitments of the Labour party—commitments that have already, by implication, mounted up to spend more, to tax more and to borrow more.
        The second feature that debates in the House have in common with opera is the fact that one frequently has to suspend one's disbelief. I certainly had to suspend mine somewhat when I listened to the hon. Member for Peckham and I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few pithy words about her speech.
        The hon. Lady seemed to clothe Labour in the garb of a party of low taxation. She spent much time berating us for having put taxes up in the previous two Budgets. Yet let us examine the record of the most recent Labour Government—one has to go back a long way to find a Labour Government, but I must tell younger Members that there was one between 1964 and 1970 and another between 1974 and 1979. Older Members of the House—not you, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker—will recall that the burden of taxation was higher when both those Governments left office than it was when they came in.
        The hon. Member for Peckham also seemed to say that, if the Labour party came into office it would be the party of low borrowing. She made a specious comparison concerning the public sector borrowing requirement, which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury challenged from a sedentary position. She took a definition of the PSBR that

        949
        was wholly unknown to the Treasury when there was a Labour Government and considered central Government borrowing alone.
        That definition of such matters may be used on the continent, but it happens not to be the definition traditionally used in this country. The hon. Lady contrasted it with the equivalent figure for central Government borrowing under the present Government—at least she was comparing like with like—and cast our position in what from her point of view was a favourably unfavourable light.
        However, the Treasury works on the assumption that all public borrowing, whether it is done by local authorities —hence all the debate about capital receipts—by the remaining nationalised industries, or sometimes even by what are called quangos, counts towards the total of public borrowing. That is because in a sense a public guarantee stands behind all that borrowing. If the hon. Lady had drawn that comparison, her figures would have come out differently.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend conclude, as I do, that the hon. Member for Peckham wished to exclude local government debt because the bulk of it is incurred by Labour authorities that have never lived up to their responsibilities and tried to reduce the debt problem?
        Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is right. Much local authority debt is attributable to the spending policies of Labour-controlled authorities.
        Mr. Betts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the current rules on local authority borrowing, local authorities can borrow only for investment, not for current expenditure, and that all that borrowing has to be approved by central Government, who must therefore share the responsibility? Is he aware that, when the Prime Minister was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he produced a report on behalf of the Government advocating that certain elements of local authority expenditure, directly connected with their raising of taxation, should not count as part of the PSBR? Such a case is arguable, even by Conservative Members.
        Mr. Forman: I take that point, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my argument was about the historical record. I was talking retrospectively rather than prospectively.
        The hon. Member for Peckham also sought to cast her party as the party of low and responsible spending. That same refrain has recently been taken up in the context of the local elections by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). However, I could not help noticing in the newspapers recently that the shadow health spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had made one vivid commitment—that the Labour party's aim would be to increase tax-financed spending on the health service to 7 per cent. of GNP. That is a nonsensical indicator. The great thing about spending on health is not only that it should increase but that it should be cost-effective, and that we should get the maximum possible patient care for whatever money the nation can afford at the time.
        Finally, and rather incredibly—this goes back to my theme of the suspension of disbelief—the Labour party has
        950
        made a stab at presenting itself as the party of low inflation and responsible management of the economy, were it ever to be in government. Yet again, I could not help noticing a recent commitment to a statutory minimum wage of £4 an hour, which I have not heard officially denied by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: Let me officially deny it now.
        Mr. Forman: That shows how helpful Back-Bench speeches can be. They can elicit a little more clarity on the evolution of Labour policies.
        The Labour party claims to be the responsible party of low inflation. However, I cannot help noticing that, over the past two years or so, for the duration of this Parliament and slightly longer, every time that it has been prudent and possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, on the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England, to cut interest rates—after all, they have fallen substantially, from 15 per cent. to 5.25 per cent.—the Labour party's response, either from the Leader of the Opposition or from the shadow Treasury spokesman, has been, "Not enough; it should have been a point more." As a policy that could be presented credibly to the markets as a policy of low inflation, that beggars belief.
        On all those counts—taxation, borrowing, spending and the safeguarding of the nation's finances in terms of controlling inflation—one has to suspend one's disbelief when one listens to Labour party spokesmen, so the experience has a great deal in common with a night at the opera.
        To make my second broad point, I again speak as the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Hon. Members who read the briefing material that the institute supplied to the Standing Committee will know that its main argument this year, on behalf of most people in the profession, did not concern matters of detail. I confess that the institute was somewhat exercised about what was then clause 241, which the Government wisely, and with all-party approval, withdrew. However, the institute's main point concerned the interminable and unacceptable length of the Bill, its opacity and the fact that it is inherently too complicated.
        That argument comes from the practitioners, who have earlier been described as cashing in on the benefits of complexity and opacity in financial legislation. If even they make that point, one must admit that it is an altruistic and sensible statement, which the Government should heed.
        Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend should not be blinded by the strength of his support for the institute that briefs him. As a practising chartered accountant, I assure him that it is possible to have it both ways.
        Mr. Forman: I have no doubt that clever professionals tend to have things both ways. I refer not only to the accountancy profession but to other walks of life; I have no doubt that the same is true of lawyers and doctors. I stand duly corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern); perhaps I should call him my hon. and learned Friend on such matters.
        I have a serious point about fiscal policy in the medium to longer term. It is a point that I made on Second Reading in broad terms and I do not apologise for going back to it because I believe that it bears repetition. In the medium to longer term, by which I mean in the next Parliament, when we shall still be on the Government Benches and the

        951
        Opposition will still be over there, we shall need further to broaden the tax base. That is a very important point. At the same time—this is the concomitant point—we shall need to lower our rates of tax, especially in terms of income tax and VAT. Those are the two sectors in which I should like to see lower rates of tax.
        In case Opposition Members think that they must suspend disbelief when they hear me say that, explain briefly how those lower rates of tax could be achieved. On income tax, hon. Members will know that the cost of tax allowances, or tax expenditures, is colossal. The Government are to be commended for making a small range of attacks on those tax expenditures in this and previous Budgets. That trend should be continued.
        What hon. Members may not know so well is that, were a future Chancellor or, indeed, the present Chancellor, who I hope will do this in a future Budget, to take the bold decision dramatically to extend the base of VAT so that it covered all forms of consumer expenditure—a point that I have argued on the record on previous occasions—it would be perfectly possible, as I shall show when I give hon. Members the figures, to move to a standard rate of VAT of 15 per cent., instead of 17.5 per cent. as it will be from April next year. At the same time, it would be perfectly possible to introduce a starting rate of VAT on the real essentials of 8 per cent., which would be analogous to the multi-rate structures that our partners in the European Union have.
        It would be possible to make such a change in such a way by broadening the base and by cutting the rates so that some of the items now covered at 17.5 per cent. would be covered at 8 per cent., which would constitute a cut in the rate of VAT. Other items that are now zero-rated or exempt would come in at 8 per cent. The standard rate would come down from 17.5 to 15 per cent. The net effect of that package, when run through the Treasury model, as she is called, would be a net gain to the Exchequer in the current tax year of between £5 billion and £10 billion. That would be very useful revenue for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his efforts further to close the public sector borrowing requirement.
        Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House why the rate of VAT went up from 15 to 17.5 per cent in the first place? If he does not care to do that, I remind the House that the reason was the gross waste of public money that the poll tax and all the disasters that accompanied it represented in terms of losses to the Exchequer.
        Mr. Forman: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is being very kind; she is intruding into private Tory grief on this point. I do not wish to rake over the coals, to mix my metaphors. She, I and the House know that the reason for the increase was that the party got into a bit of a mess over what was called the poll tax. It was wise, timely and necessary for the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), to switch the burden to VAT. However, that is not to say that one cannot take a different view of those matters as the years go by.
        We have a better alternative in the shape of the council tax, which is an improvement on the poll tax in many respects. What is more, as we manage the nation's finances prudently in future, as we have done in the past, it should be possible to make the rather bold reforming changes to the tax structure that I have just sketched out.
        952
        I shall put on record two or three reasons why the changes that I have just recommended for the medium to longer term are necessary and make sense. Those reasons are based on realism rather than on pie in the sky. The first reason, to which other hon. Members have alluded earlier today, is that in the world of global capital movements and instantaneous financial transactions, there is increasing competition, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) said, between national tax authorities.
        That is one of the realities of the modern world which has a secular tendency to drive down rates of taxation, especially marginal rates—it may even drive down average rates of taxation as well. That is a healthy development because it means that people have to seek better and better value for whatever public expenditure they can afford to finance through taxation. The more that it can be honestly financed that way rather than on the back of public borrowing, the better.
        The first reason, therefore, why it is necessary to make the strategic reform that I recommend is that, with the growing competition between national tax authorities, especially the competition affecting taxes on income and capital, it will be strategically necessary for the present Chancellor and future Chancellors to find a variety of ways in which to make our taxation regime, especially on those two items, as attractive as possible internationally.
        More and more of those forms of tax will essentially be voluntary taxation. In other words, in the world of mobile investment, mobile corporate decisions and mobile high net worth individuals, people will be able to decide to situate here rather than there on the basis of the tax regime that applies.
        My second reason is topical because something that the Trades Union Congress said about changes in the labour market was reported in the press today. What we see now and shall continue to see—incidentally, a similar point was made in yesterday's debate on child care. by Opposition Members—is a gradual erosion of the income tax base because of the relative decline of full-time paid employment. Opposition Members know that better than most people do. There has been a relative growth of part-time and casual employment, and of self-employment.
        The figures are interesting. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) did yesterday, I shall pull some figures out of my pocket. Our population is 56 million people. Some 31 million of those 56 million people are not in work for very good reasons; they may be pensioners or below the age of employment. Some 3 million are registered as unemployed—these are round figures—and 1 million people would like a job if they could get one, but have more or less given up the hunt.
        Those figures leave 25 million people in work, of whom 3 million are self-employed. Some 6 million are in part-time work, which leaves 16 million people, out of my total of 56 million people, who are in full-time work as employees and who contribute to the Revenue in the classic way that has been the case since 1944 and the days of Sir Paul Chambers. They contribute through PAYE—pay as you earn—with the employers doing the bulk of the tax collection work on behalf of the Revenue.
        Those figures mean that fewer than one third of the total population are being required largely to support the rest of the population, whose needs are varying, through the auspices of tax and national insurance. That suggests to me a greater need to consider my third reason for making the change to which I have referred—the move towards the

        953
        kind of expenditure tax system recommended some time ago by Professor Mead. That system takes account of the erosion of the income tax base and is much better tailored to capturing revenue when, increasingly, potential revenue is escaping the tax authorities because of the black economy, the tendency for people to consume and the need generally to maximise the tax take from a shrinking tax base.
        Mr. Stern: I cannot let my hon. Friend get away with what he said a couple of minutes ago. It is neither fair nor proper to suggest that the 6 million self-employed people do not provide a significant proportion of the tax and national insurance that the country needs. That was what my hon. Friend, no doubt inadvertently, implied.
        Mr. Forman: I did not intend to make that point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. I was saying that the bulk of taxation, especially on income, as my hon. Friend knows better that I do, comes from people who pay income tax, and national insurance of course, at the standard rate. About 95 per cent. of all taxpayers, as my hon. Friend knows, pay only at the standard rate and not at the higher rate, whatever it may be. Therefore, those arrangements, which have grown up since the days of Sir Paul Chambers in 1944, are still the bedrock of the buoyancy of our revenue generated on the income side.
        My third argument in favour of moving gradually—the Government have already begun—towards an expenditure tax model for the tax system is that it has an in-built bias in favour of investment and savings as opposed to consumption. Many hon. Members, including, I suspect, some Opposition Members, think that we need more of an investment bias in our economy over the next phase of the recovery. Indeed, there are many signs from the current degree of re-stocking that that investment bias is now taking place and we are glad about it.
        In a nutshell, whatever fun we may be able to have at the expense of the Labour party—I am sure that we may have some sport—and whatever may be the shortcomings from a technical point of view of the enormously long and complicated Finance Bill, nonetheless, in the Budget, which is after all the reason for the Finance Bill, the Chancellor took the right and responsible decision to give priority to closing the public sector deficit. That will happen not in one year but over several years. He did it at the right time and in the right way and I pay tribute to the Finance Bill.
        7.41 pm
        Mr. Enright: During the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was reminded of nobody so much as the Emperor Caligula—not because of his coiffure or his attire, although those indeed rival the appearance of the emperor—
        Mr. Hoon: It was because he made his horse a consul.
        Mr. Enright: I was not reminded of Caligula because, as my hon. Friend has just said, the Chief Secretary made his horse a consul, although he has a considerable number of asses working for him in the Treasury. Indeed, when the right hon. Gentleman took on the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) as his special adviser, he instantly doubled the IQ of the Treasury.
        954
        Where the Chief Secretary reminded me most of the Emperor Caligula was in his fiscal policy, because it was the Emperor Caligula's aim to go forth, to tax and increase taxes and spend them not on the good of the people, but on the good of himself and his friends. That is precisely what has happened. In excusing himself, the Emperor Caligula regularly gave specious reasons why he had to impose the taxes for the grandeur of Rome, and also regularly pointed out how much better he had been than the excellent Emperor Tiberius, which was not at all true.
        If one considers the claims of the Government, we discover that they are quite false. We may always take a three-month period or a six-month period or a one-year period and extrapolate from them something which is reasonable, but let us consider a ten-year period and find out how the United Kingdom compares with the leading industrial countries.
        The average UK unemployment over 10 years is the highest in comparison. Its growth rate is the lowest. In terms of inflation, only Italy is higher than the United Kingdom. In terms of high interest rates, again only Italy exceeds the United Kingdom. In terms of exports, the UK is the lowest.
        There are two areas on which the Government have especially concentrated, and one has been inflation. Therefore, one would expect that Italy had done even worse than the United Kingdom over those ten years, but that is not the case. Italy's employment record, its growth record, its export record and its expenditure record are all better than the United Kingdom's, and Italy is scarcely a model of good government. Yet Italy outstrips us over 10 years, which says something about the depths into which we have fallen.
        The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) talked about a brand image. A brand image is what one presents to customers. To objective customers, the Government look cheap and tawdry. They are an imitation of that which they would be like to be: an imitation of honesty, an imitation of looking to the long-term future, and a complete failure in so doing.
        The little discussion among accountants on the Conservative Benches was interesting, because one of the great bugbears of British manufacturing industry has been that accountants have taken control of boards, and, simply for short-term financial reasons, have destroyed great swathes of manufacturing industry. They have served the country ill in their commanding position. Accountants are essentially the handmaidens, they are the servants and, too often, they have become the bosses. That fact was mirrored in the speech of the otherwise humane Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).
        Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the startling fact that one quarter of all the accountants in the European Union come from the United Kingdom bears out some of the points that he is making about the deadening effect they have on our manufacturing industry and our ability to compete in the modern world?
        Mr. Enright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I must confess that it is not something that I had dwelt on in those terms. However, it is true that service industries can be creative and constructive, but too many of our accountants are precisely the opposite.
        Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Enright: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Forman: I rise to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech simply because of my known connection with the accountancy profession, to which I do not think that he can attribute the relative decline of our manufacturing industry over a long period. Indeed, the decline in employment in manufacturing goes back to 1964. There are many other reasons for the decline, which are to do with the state of industrial relations and with the growth of competitiveness in other countries. He travesties the position to pretend that it is attributable to the accountancy profession.
        Mr. Enright: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I would not wish to say that all accountants are in the same boat. Nevertheless, it is true that certain attitudes of management in British industry have been responsible for its decline.
        One only has to work on the continent—one sees it starkly in Africa—to see that the quality, not of all British industry management, but of too much of it, is very poor. That problem has not been addressed by the Government: by the Department of Employment or by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a matter of serious concern, which should be addressed. We need a whole variety of training, but training in management at all levels is crucial. We do not do it well, as they do on the continent, and it is most certainly not done as well as in the United States and in Japan.
        I shall not only consider the cash, the pennies, the awesome sums that are produced, but consider a little the humanity which should be behind our fiscal and financial policy.
        Conservative Members regularly say that the whole question of a minimum wage will drag us down as a country. I find that an extraordinary statement. I have believed since my early youth, because I was taught it, that there is such a thing as a just wage, and that it is right in society to fight for a just wage. If a minimum wage is not a just wage, I do not know what is.
        It is quite wrong to say that industry cannot manage a minimum wage. Why not? Industry elsewhere does. Industry in Germany does. Every single company that has come into the country manages to produce what would be the equivalent of a just wage.
        Mr. Forman: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, respond to my observations by saying that what he is saying is not Labour policy?
        Mr. Enright: On the contrary, I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. might have jumped on him if he had said something deadly wrong in moral terms. In fact, he did not do so. He said that we, the Labour party, refused to quantify a minimum wage.
        Mr. Forman: No.
        Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend said that it was not £4. That is extremely important.
        It is about time that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who have recently joined the Church of
        956
        which I am a member, stopped choosing a la carte. The teaching of a minimum wage and of consultation of trade unions or appropriate bodies has been the morality, not the policy, of the Catholic Church, going back to Pope Leo XIII and "Rerum Novarum". It was reaffirmed by "Quadragesimo Anno".
        I see that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), the Government Whip, is shaking his head. Pope Pius XII, who can scarcely be accused of any leftist, let alone communist, tendencies, attended the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Communities treaties and made a speech in which he said specifically that trade unions were an important part of the consultation process, and that the future development of industry depended on consultation with workers' representatives. That is extremely important.
        Pope Pius X11 said that the treaty was not solely about economics, and not simply about the trade of certain commodities, but about bringing justice towards ordinary people, health and safety at work and treating human beings with the dignity they deserve. It is about time we reminded ourselves of those basic moral values. Hon. Members may put them aside if they wish—I most certainly will not do so—but I shall not have them sneered at by Conservative Members.
        German industry, a good deal of American industry and Japanese industry are able to observe moral edicts of the sort that I have described and still be profitable. Surely it is common sense that any company that wishes to be successful should take on board its work force, should have it going enthusiastically along with the company, should be consulting it about the future, and should be consulting it about deficiencies.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: I am intrigued by the use of papal infallibility to bolster a Labour party policy. In hard terms, however, the reality is that, if we are to have a minimum wage, the state must bear in mind the fact that, ultimately, it may have to subsidise a higher level of unemployment, because entry into work is often barred because companies cannot afford that minimum wage. The alternative is to subsidise companies to take on someone and to pay him the minimum wage. Is that not precisely what France is now experiencing, with all the troubles it faces with high youth unemployment because of a minimum wage?
        Mr. Enright: The hon. Gentleman is normally much more intelligent and perceptive than that. First, it is not the policy of the Pope and infallibility. The Labour party came a long time after that. I ask him to cast his mind back—assuming that he was taught religion properly—to the Acts of the Apostles. They held all their goods in common and gave to each according to each as had need. That is a fair principle. I think that it was taken up by Karl Marx, or someone like that. If the hon. Gentleman considers the description of the early Christian community, he will find similar words in his New Testament.
        I suggest that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was even further out of line—his suggestion that a minimum wage would make unemployment much worse. For 15 years, the Government have set their face against a minimum wage. They have asked us to accept that they are wonderful in their deregulating exercises. In fact, they have quadrupled unemployment. I need no lessons in reducing unemployment from Conservative Members. Their approach is an absurdity.

        957
        There is more than one absurdity. A Minister from the Department of Employment talked in European Community Standing Committee B about child labour. That dreadful dragon of a Commission was proposing that we contain the number of hours that children work. He complained about that. He seemed to be saying that children should be allowed to work all hours. In one way or another, he seemed to suggest that they should be open all hours.
        The next day the Secretary of State for Education was telling us about the problems of truancy, and how we can solve them. I can say without any doubt that a large proportion of truancy or unauthorised absence from school arises because children are doing milk rounds or paper rounds. They are the same students who often go to school and fall asleep. They do not absorb the basic elements. We must keep a balance, instead of resisting every proposed change.
        The Government, by their fiscal and financial policies, are shoving us into a real poverty trap. They cannot complain about the breakdown of the family if their policies are almost deliberately designed to destroy the family.
        The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that, if value added tax was 15 per cent. throughout and we then sliced off income tax, the result would be much fairer, more reasonable and simpler. It is clear that he is not aware of what has happened to families in my constituency.
        The pits having been deliberately put out of business by the Government, most of my constituents rely on low-wage jobs. Some of them are paid £80 a week. I have in mind especially an industrial estate. I went to the factories within it to ascertain what they paid for a standard 40-hour week. I found that they were paying £80, £100, £105 or £115. The wages were hovering at those levels.
        How do people pay the taxes that are so heinously demanded by the Government if they are on those low wages and bringing up a family of four? No one can do that. The result is destructive. The consequences lead to crime and the cause of crime. It is true that not all kids commit crime, but it does not surprise me that many of them get into criminal situations.
        We need an education for skills and ideals. It should not be one that is utilitarian and materialistic. We need education that teaches people to think beyond the 5p, 10p or £2,000 that they claw unto themselves without thinking about the morality of doing so.
        We need also an integration of various policies. There appeared today before the Select Committee on European Legislation a note written by the Minister for Energy, a well-known intellectual. He wrote that the European policy on energy is not acceptable to the United Kingdom. What is that policy? The rest of Europe is saying that there is a requirement to integrate social and energy policies. That is clearly true, but that did not happen with the closure of the pits.
        We shall be left, because of the short-sighted way in which the Treasury team conduct our country's policy, reliant upon external sources for our energy by the turn of the century. At the turn of the century, when every expert from the United States, Japan, Africa or wherever points out that the main source of energy will once again be coal, the pits have been shut down. Misery has been created, and
        958
        the public sector borrowing requirement has been created by the Government. People will go cap in hand to get their money from employment exchanges which no longer have the ability to employ.
        The Government are absolutely encapsulated by what Ian Byatt said last night. Ian Byatt, who is supposed to protect the customers of water, was asked: "To whom are you responsible?" He did not say the customers; he did not even say the companies; he said the City. That is the sort of morality that is preached by the Government. I was shocked by the reply. It is the reason why, if the Government had any sensitivity, they would sack him at once, and all the people he has appointed.
        The country has the skills, the people, the resources, and the resourcefulness to solve its problems. What it needs is leadership. The Government offer none.
        8 pm
        Mr. Stern: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) in the wide-ranging nature of his speech, except perhaps to say that in view of the fact that he was bandying Christian doctrine across the Floor of the House—I can take a fairly detached view as I come from a somewhat older religion than Christianity —his remarks about accountants were peculiarly un-Christian.
        Mr. Enright: Of course, I withdraw, in that like all Christians, I should love sinners more than anyone else.
        Mr. Stern: Naturally, I accept that apology.
        In some fairly brief remarks, because I know that some of my colleagues also wish to speak, I shall concentrate on one aspect of the Finance Bill which has been the most important to me, namely, the technical changes that have been introduced.
        This has been a far-reaching Bill in terms of changing the structure of a number of areas of taxation which go back right to the dawn of income tax and which the Government have rightly and extremely bravely taken on and changed. I am referring both to the preceding year basis of assessment for income tax which has been around as long as anyone can remember and which the Government now propose to bring to an end, and the method of assessment, which will bring us into line with many more successful systems of assessment and collection of tax.
        I congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on introducing the reforms, despite a barrage of criticism both as to the manner of the reforms and their form. I shall deal briefly with both of those aspects.
        The Finance Bill, of which we are now seeing the final stage, has been criticised—and in many respects rightly —for its length. It is the longest Bill that we have seen recently. I only hope that it is not a prelude to a longer Bill next year. As was pointed out in Committee, one of the reasons why it was such a long Bill was that it attempted to rewrite large sections of taxation legislation, rather than simply amend it. In doing so, it incurred a large amount of criticism from professions such as solicitors and accountants not for the fact that it attempts to make changes but for the manner in which those changes are made.
        Those criticisms are largely unfair because it seems that, if a root-and-branch reform of a whole system of taxation is being attempted, it is much more helpful to set out the

        959
        new law in different terminology and in a completely unified set of precepts than to attempt to pander to those who are used to one set of terminology and language and who wish to see the reform appear to be part of the previous system, rather than something totally new.
        I noticed that my hon. Friend was criticised by someone for whom I normally have a great deal of admiration—the president of the Institute of Taxation. He criticised my hon. Friend for the changes in language and the length of the new measures that have been introduced. I should point out to my hon. Friend that the president of the Institute of Taxation is a well known and highly respected solicitor. It is not perhaps surprising that a member of the legal profession should object to changes in terminology which cause changes in the patterns of thinking in that profession.
        As someone who was trained more in the use of mathematics than wording, I agree with the principles perhaps first set out by Professor Whitehead in "Principia Mathematica". He pointed out that all words are merely an expression of a different aspect of number. Therefore I find it much less difficult than the president of the Institute of Taxation to accept the new concepts and the new terminology introduced in the Bill in terms of setting out a working system for the impact of income tax on most people for most of the rest of their lives.
        Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am listening carefully to what he is saying. Does he agree that it is not so much the wording of the legislation that is being objected to as the complexity of the additional taxes being introduced in the system? The previous Chancellor, to give him credit, tried to streamline the system and make it simpler for those who had to administer it. The real problem is that a number of new taxes have been added without any attempt to simplify or streamline the system. That shows that the present Chancellor does not have a grasp of what he is saying.
        Mr. Stern: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but she has misunderstood my point. Of course, she is entitled to make her point in her own way on those parts of the Bill that I was not discussing if she succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The part of the Bill that I was discussing related to the changes being introduced in terms of self assessment and the current year basis of assessment, to which the hon. Lady's comments do not apply. We are not talking about—this is the point that I was making—the complexity of language; we are talking about an entirely new concept being introduced in new terms. That is what I was congratulating my hon. Friend on, and the provisions in the Bill will be much longer lasting as a result.
        Having examined the new system of law, I shall turn to an area which my hon. Friend and I discussed in Committee with regard to the change to the current year basis of assessment of income tax. As I pointed out, and my hon. Friend agreed in Committee, the changes introduced in the Bill were incomplete in one respect in that it was necessary to give an early indication of the new anti-avoidance provisions to complete the new pattern of current year assessment.
        In Committee, my hon. Friend gave an undertaking that as new businesses are already subject to the new system of assessment introduced in the Bill, it was necessary to give at least an early indication of the new anti-avoidance provisions. I hesitate to remind my hon. Friend that he gave
        960
        an undertaking to issue a consultative document before the end of the fiscal year; he missed, but not by much. I am grateful to him for at least making the attempt.
        I am a little worried about the consultative document that my hon. Friend has published. The anti-avoidance provisions which have now been published as a consultation document rely rightly on a number of triggers to come into effect. However, they seem to repeat an error, which my hon. Friend admitted in the debate on what was then clause 240 of the Finance Bill—to confuse evasion and avoidance.
        I shall briefly remind the House that evasion is illegal and is to be stamped on at every opportunity, but avoidance is perfectly legitimate and has been praised by judges on many occasions. It has always been accepted that it should never be a target for penalty by the Inland Revenue, yet in the anti-avoidance provisions which my hon. Friend has now published, it seems that he is proposing to depart from that principle.
        One of the triggers which is proposed in the anti-avoidance provisions is the shifting of profits into the year in which only half are effectively assessable. It is proposed under the anti-avoidance provision that the remedy available to the Inland Revenue will effectively be to tax those shifted profits at an effective rate of a maximum of 60 per cent. The profits will be taxed fully in the year in which the Inland Revenue says they should have been, and by 50 per cent. also in the year in which they appear.
        This to me is a wholly inappropriate and unsupportable aspect of tax to prevent avoidance. It is a tax determined after the event, and often as a result of disagreement, and is purely to prevent something that is perfectly legal in the first place.
        All the other anti-avoidance provisions which my hon. Friend is proposing merely restore the status quo. They restore taxation to what it would have been if the attempt to avoid tax had not taken place. I ask my hon. Friend sincerely to look again at the one area of anti-avoidance which I have highlighted because what is proposed in the document which has been published is a wholly unacceptable penalty for a perfectly legitimate action.
        It will take some time for the new proposals to bed down. I have no doubt that, as in so many other areas of major tax reform, there will be changes to be made in future Finance Bills. It would be foolish to accept that that will not happen. I conclude my brief comments as I started, by congratulating the Government and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, not just on attempting a major reform which has been long overdue, but on carrying it through in this Bill and, so far, apparently carrying it through with great success.
        8.13 pm
        Mr. Hoon: I will not follow the comments of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern); suffice it to say that I think George Bernard Shaw said:
        "All professions are conspiracies against the laity."
        I know that that applies to accountants, but I am sure it does not apply to lawyers.
        In the course of many interviews which the Chancellor gave in the immediate aftermath of his Budget, he emphasised that he did not want to be one of those Chancellors whose Budgets are rapturously received at the time, only to prove—as the details were examined more carefully—to be a Chancellor whom history would recall

        961
        got it wrong. He did not say so specifically, but perhaps he was thinking of Lord Lawson's giveaway Budget which helped the Conservatives to win a general election, but for which, arguably, the country has been paying ever since.
        It already appears that the Budget embodied in the Bill —when it is examined in detail by the electorate—is proving to be as damaging to the interests of the country as Lord Lawson's Budget. Despite the Chancellor's warnings to himself, he seems to have proved to be a Chancellor of short-term popularity only.
        At the time of the Budget, he appeared to be at the height of his popularity, certainly with Government Back Benchers, in what we could describe as the "Who will succeed the Prime Minister?" handicap stakes. Tory Back Benchers waved their Order Papers like successful punters celebrating a visit to the winners' enclosure. Unfortunately, we cannot re-run history, but it is difficult to see that such a rapturous reception would be given to the Budget today if that speech were to be delivered again.
        Indeed, most political commentators appear to date the decline in the prospects of the Chancellor succeeding the Prime Minister from the date of the Budget speech—a speech which, of course, led to the biggest series of tax rises in our history. If the support which we have heard from Government Members is reflected in the country, why have the prospects of promotion for the Chancellor of Exchequer been seriously diminished? After all, the electorate which will choose the next leader of the Conservative party is on the Government Benches. If they are so enthusiastic about the Chancellor's Budget, why have they appeared to withdraw their support from the person who is responsible for it?
        I shall be grateful if whoever succeeds me in the debate addresses that argument, because there appears to have been a serious loss of confidence in the Chancellor's prospects among the parliamentary Conservative party. Conservative Members will decide whether the Chancellor succeeds the Prime Minister, and they must do so presumably on his record as Chancellor. They appear to support the Budget, but they do not appear to be enthusiastic any longer about the Chancellor becoming the Prime Minister.
        Could it be that, up down the country, their constituents are giving them a barrage of criticism about the effect of this Budget on their financial circumstances? Could that be influencing the minds of Conservative Members when they think about who they would like to succeed the Prime Minister?
        The Third Reading debate gives us the opportunity of considering whether the fears of my constituents—and, I know, those of other hon. Members across the country—are justified. The House has been able to examine in detail in the period since the Budget speech whether the Chancellor's warning to himself was justified. We have had opportunities since the Budget speech, in Committee and now at Third Reading of determining the precise effect of the Budget. What is our verdict and how has the Budget already affected the country's economy?
        I suggest that we begin by looking at the Bank of England's quarterly survey which was published at the beginning of the year. The survey noted that the main force then driving the recovery was consumer spending. It follows that that is dependent upon consumer confidence.
        962
        The Government's claims for a recovery at that stage were set out in the figures for January which showed that retail sales were up by 0.6 per cent. over December, and indeed were 3.5 per cent. higher than in January 1993.
        All the indicators now show, as people have begun to appreciate the impact of the Budget on their personal finances, that consumers are significantly less confident and that the consumer-driven recovery is stalling, if it has not already stalled. We have some up-to-date evidence of the attitude of consumers towards the present state of the economy.
        A Gallup survey of consumer confidence which was conducted on behalf of the European Commission in the first two weeks of April was published this week. The poll showed that consumer confidence has fallen close to the second lowest level recorded in the 14 years since the poll was established. The results show that only 15 per cent. of those polled said that they expected their household finances to improve during the next year, with 45 per cent. predicting that they would be worse off. That is a negative balance of some 30 per cent.—similar to the 31 per cent. negative balance in March 1990, just as the economy went into recession. That was the second lowest figure ever recorded by that polling organisation.
        Gloom about household finances seems to reflect also gloom about the country's general economic prospects. In the same poll, 43 per cent. of those surveyed were pessimistic about the country's economic prospects, compared with 21 per cent. who were optimistic. That is negative balance of 22 percentage points.
        In the context of a Third Reading debate about the impact of the Budget, it is interesting to compare the position in the last two weeks of April—when 22 per cent. of opinion was negative—with that in January, immediately after the Budget and perhaps before its impact had settled in. Then, the number of optimists equalled the number of pessimists. There has clearly been a significant collapse of consumer confidence since the Budget, and that survey suggests, along with other evidence, that the tax increases contained in the Bill are to blame.
        Consumer confidence was actually rising in the last quarter of 1993, before the publication of the Chancellor's Budget proposals. As the details of those proposals have sunk in, however, and people have begun to appreciate the consequences for their personal finances, there has been a rapid and significant decline in that confidence.
        This week also saw the publication of a CBI survey showing that retail sales growth exactly reflects the loss of consumer confidence. It is likely that in March, for the second month running, sales were broadly level—or only slightly up after a decline in February. The CBI survey has precisely tracked the level of confidence tracked by Gallup in relation to individual consumers.
        If Conservative Members are not satisfied with either the evidence of their own constituents or that of the surveys that I have mentioned, particularly the Gallup survey, perhaps we should examine what is arguably the most authoritarian view—I am sorry; I meant authoritative. [Laughter.] When hon. Members hear who is involved, they will realise that that may have been a Freudian slip.
        The most authoritative view of the state of the economy resulted from a survey of one: the occupant of No. 11 Downing street. We now know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer really thinks about the state of the economy, as a result of the welcome publication of the minutes of his monthly meetings with the governor of the Bank of

        963
        England. Those minutes reveal a private view of what is happening in the British economy that is significantly at variance with the Chancellor's public pronouncements.
        In January, when the Chancellor was publicly proclaiming the benefits of economic recovery and growth arising from his Budget, he was privately telling the governor of the Bank that
        "He himself was much less sure that the pace of growth had picked up significantly in recent months".
        He went on to admit that
        "In addition, the Budget measures were likely to cause activity to slow".
        To be fair to the Chancellor, he has remained consistent: in the March meeting, he indicated that anecdotal evidence did not suggest that activity was growing strongly. However, that too is at variance with what Treasury Ministers have said about the state of the economy during our debates. They have suggested that the recovery is well established, and that the Budget certainly did not contribute to any slowing of activity or anything approaching a stalling of the economy.
        The overall message given in private by the Chancellor to the governor of the Bank of England suggests that, in reality, he is not very confident about growth and recovery. Indeed, the general theme of the minutes for January, February and March is the necessity to stimulate recovery by lowering interest rates. The essence of his debate with the governor is this: the Chancellor is not very optimistic about the state of the economy and feels that it is necessary to reduce interest rates, while the governor is concerned about the impact of such a reduction on inflation.
        Mr. Willetts: It is a great pity that, when the Government make a significant move towards greater openness in the discussion of economic policy, all that we hear is a selective quotation from minutes in an attempt to make implausible party political points. The main message from those discussions is clear. Let me quote from the minutes of the March meeting:
        "there were no signs of a pause in growth."
        That was the clear consensus of the Bank of England and the Treasury. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman, having welcomed the publication of the minutes, should then try to misinterpret them.
        Mr. Hoon: I am sorry about that. Inevitably, all quotations from a long document will be selective—the hon. Gentleman would rightly protest if I tried to read out the minutes in full—but I do not accept that I have represented the discussions unfairly. In essence, the Chancellor expressed the view that recovery was not well established and was not developing, and that interest rates should therefore be cut; the governor of the Bank of England replied that, although that might be so, lowering interest rates at that stage would incur the risk of higher inflation. I consider that a fair summary of the debate that took place.
        Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the "essence" of the minutes. Surely the essence of the minutes of any meeting is contained in the conclusions, on which both my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the governor of the Bank of England agreed. The various minutes set out those conclusions, which represent the combined judgments of the two people involved. If the hon. Gentleman wants to arrive at the "essence" of the meeting, let him refer to the conclusions, which were agreed and acted on.
        Mr. Hoon: They were acted on to the extent that there was a modest change in interest rates during the period concerned, and there is currently considerable speculation about the possibility of further changes. That precisely tracks the developments in the course of those meetings that I have tried to set out. How we interpret the minutes is a question of judgment; I certainly do not feel that I have misled the House in any way in my representation of what took place.
        The evidence that I have cited—the conclusions of the Gallup and CBI surveys and, indeed, the private view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—suggests that the tax rises announced in the Budget will pose significant problems for any further growth in the economy this year. They are clearly to blame for the collapse of consumer confidence, and that in turn will lead to a slowdown in the recovery. That is why I began by quoting from the Bank of England's quarterly survey, which suggested that the Government's strategy was based on an improvement in consumer confidence.
        Such an improvement appeared to be under way in the earlier part of the year, and there were some statistics to support that; now, however, those statistics seem to have disappeared, and consumer confidence—the real test of the Government's strategy—has collapsed. As the figures confirm, that is a direct consequence of the way in which the Government have raised taxes at a critical point in the health of our economy.
        8.27 pm
        Mr. Ian Taylor: This has been a wide-ranging debate.
        If I heard him correctly, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) called in aid the emperor Caligula and various popes, all of whom occupied Rome —although, I suspect, for slightly different purposes. I began to feel a little worried when he threw all the apostles at me in response to my intervention: he and I often share certain christian democrat instincts—small "c", small "d" —about the way in which policy in the European Community should go.
        Mr. Enright rose—
        Mr. Taylor: If I have in any way traduced the hon. Gentleman's biblical leanings, I shall of course give way to him.
        Mr. Enright: May I just point out that the popes inhabited the Vatican, not Rome? There is a considerable distinction.
        The hon. Gentleman mentioned christian democrats. Is he prepared to say whether he supports the European People's party manifesto for the European elections, which takes a slightly different view?
        Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is never cheap, so I will not be distracted. Let me say, however, that I certainly support the European People's party, with which we are in alliance in the approaching elections—elections that will, I hope, leave a centre-right majority in the European Parliament.
        Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Taylor: Will the hon. Lady's intervention be on the Bill or on the pope?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I will answer that question. It will be on the Finance Bill: I do not intend to allow debate on anything else.
        Mr. Taylor: I shall stick to the straight and narrow of the Bill. As you were not able to be present in Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall tell you that proceedings there were as enjoyable as the past few minutes on Third Reading have been, thanks to the guillotine which enables us to have a proper debate rather than trying to take up time.
        As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is a weighty document—too weighty. It has too many clauses and schedules and we should try to make it more digestible in future. However, it contains many interesting clauses, some of which were rather too interesting for the stomachs of some of my hon. Friends in Committee.
        I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who rushed us through all the lengthy procedures with great sensitivity. I am pleased that the cogent arguments put by me and by others led to changes in Committee and on Report. I think especially of the changes to capital gains tax on indexation of losses. We expressed strong opinions against the blanket removal of indexation of losses, and I am delighted that, belatedly and in the new tax year, the Government have had second thoughts on that.
        There were other difficulties which I shall not mention, but I underline the insurance premium tax because on that the Government clearly listened to the industry, following a hesitant start. We had to move quickly. The industry made representations, and I declare the interest that I declared in Committee, that I advise Commercial Union but do not speak for it. The exercise of a good Committee working with a sensitive Financial Secretary who endeavours to heed outside pressures and Committee pressures has led to a better Bill.
        How could I possibly not draw the House's attention to schedule 12, which is all my own work, thanks to the Financial Secretary's encouragement? It includes further measures to encourage employee share ownership, for which I have campaigned for some time. I am delighted that, since the debate in Committee after which my amendments were accepted and broadly embodied in schedule 12, many people in the industry have issued press releases stating that this is a breakthrough and that they look forward to more statutory employee share ownership trusts.
        These are distinctive measures and should be taken in the overall context of the Budget judgment which started in November. My principal point is that I am perfectly content that the fiscal judgment in November was right. I do not resile from praising my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for his Budget judgment, which stands up very well. I am not at all put off by the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who attempted to find devilment in the minutes of the meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, as soon as there is open government people try to abuse it.
        As I said in an intervention, November's Budget judgment and the judgment in March last year by the former Chancellor have both made sure that we anticipated problems that would otherwise have emerged. If we had not increased taxation in 1993, we would now be talking about what taxes would need to be raised this year, and that
        966
        would have been a burden still to be faced. However, by failing to tackle the PSBR, we would have ensured that interest rates would have remained higher than they are. That issue is important when dealing with the market, and it could have had a much more negative effect on consumer confidence than the hon. Member for Ashfield alluded to.
        Mr. Betts: As a result of that reasoning, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government had been bold and honest enough to increase taxes in 1992 rather than in 1993, the whole process would have begun much earlier? I remind him that at that time the Government forecast was for a £30 billion PSBR deficit.
        Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in the Buget debate in 1992, I advocated tax increases but through a broadening of the tax base. The 1992 Budget judgment was made on the basis of what we then knew was reasonable. Any Government have to try to adjust to the circumstances of the time. A responsible Government faced with a PSBR deficit forecast of £50 billion have a number of options. In reply to my intervention, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) refused to make any judgment about how she would have tackled the problem.
        When faced with a PSBR deficit of £50 billion, one can either increase taxation, reduce expenditure or borrow more, or have a combination of all three. One has to make a judgment and then stand by it. I have said that in November the Chancellor got the judgment right. All the indicators show that the rise in private consumption that has been going on for the past three years is continuing and will continue in 1994.
        The slight difference, if there was any, between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was whether there were still inflationary pressures in the economy and not the extent to which taxation might damage consumption. There is inevitably some damage to consumption when new taxes, are introduced. The Labour party has always been much more enthusiastic about introducing new taxes, and it should know about the damage to consumer confidence better than we do.
        In the light of the continuation of consumption, one must judge at what point inflationary pressures could grow and at what point there would be a too-rapid take up of capacity leading to a possible increase in the trade deficit. Such judgments call for important calculations, and fiscal policy is a way of restraining or at least controlling growth in consumption. Monetary policy—that is to say, interest rates—is another of the calculations.
        The judgment is about right, and I would have been greatly concerned if I had seen a much faster reduction in interest rates, bearing in mind that they have come down from 15 to 5.25 per cent. There is now tolerance, given the wider economic situation, for a further small cut in interest rates with the agreement of the Bank of England and the Chancellor. A large cut, which is sometimes advocated by Opposition Members, would be a dangerous injection of monetary laxity and could then lead to interest rates rising much more rapidly than we would wish. Stability is all.
        One of the problems in the British economy has always been the volatility caused by over-reactive politicians. Volatility, and not just the level of inflation, has been our biggest bedevilment, so that investors require a higher yield to protect their investments against the prospect of volatile inflation. Short-term interest rates have fallen and

        967
        long-term rates fell at the time of the Budget precisely because it was plain from the figures in the Red Book that borrowing was being tackled. Long-term yields fell and the yield curve was shallower.
        More recently there have been one or two nervous phases about the long-term yields. That supports my contention that we can never ignore the prospect of inflation returning. We can never be complacent about inflation: it is a constant battle. Opposition Members should bear in mind that taxation rises this year, the restraint on expenditure and the reduction in the PSBR formed the basis for sustained economic growth with low inflation. That is what Britain has wanted for many years but could not achieve.
        I strongly believe that, if it is achieved, at the next general election we shall receive great credit for having taken the measures now, and the hon. Member for Peckham will have to start to change her tune. Almost her entire speech this afternoon fought the most recent general election again. It was not about what we should do now, about what will happen in the future. It was about this or that Minister or this or that Back Bencher saying in their election address in 1992 that the Conservative party believed in low taxation.
        We do believe in low taxation, but that does not mean that at any given moment we reduce taxation if it is not prudent so to do. We face up honestly to the electorate if we have to make a different Budget judgment. That is precisely what we have done. We do not expect to be popular for it, but it must be confronted.
        As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who will soon no longer be with us, clearly stated, for any given moment Labour will have a higher taxing policy than that of the Conservatives simply because the Labour party will always spend more money. There is no way of getting round that. The debate at the most recent general election centred on that. It was not about whether we said that taxation would increase. Labour would have increased taxation to accommodate the greater expenditure it proposed at that time.
        For any given greater level of Labour expenditure, Labour's taxation will be greater than that which we would have applied, because we would not spend that extra money. The Labour party must face the electorate with the consequences of its decision, and we must face the electorate with the consequences of ours.
        Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the debate has moved on? It is not about higher taxes but about unfair taxes. Does he agree that in the past 14 years there has been a redistribution using the taxation system, so that those people who are on lower incomes are far more heavily taxed now than they were in 1979 under a Labour Government?
        Mr. Taylor: Because average incomes have increased, it is true that it takes a lower multiple of average earnings to reach the top level of taxation than it did under the last Labour Government. I realise that. However, top rate taxpayers now contribute a greater percentage of total taxation than they did under the most recent Labour Government. Yet our top tax rate of 40 per cent. compares with 98 per cent under the last Labour Government—and unearned income tax at 15 per cent. and their top rate of tax
        968
        of 83 per cent. Now, in spite of the fact that we have reduced the top rate of tax, more tax is contributed by the top rate taxpayers.
        One has to take human reality into account. If one socks people with a 98 per cent. marginal rate of tax, they will not declare their income for taxation purposes. The biggest growth industry under the last Labour Government was accountancy—so reviled this afternoon by one or two Labour Members. The accountancy profession had its boom period because evasion as well as avoidance was a necessity for people who were otherwise being taxed at marginal rates of 98 per cent. The public still remember that; the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) should be very careful when she speaks about top rate taxpayers.
        Some interesting figures were quoted in one of the weekend newspapers. If someone on average earnings had a £50,000 variable rate mortgage that was taken out in 1988, that person's post-tax, post-mortgage income would have fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms by mid-1990. However, from mid-1990 to the end of last year, the post-tax, post-mortgage income of that same person, with that same mortgage, would have increased by 78 per cent. That is a startling change, and indicates the gearing effect on the economy, and consequently on consumption, of interest rate movements.
        It is bad news for obvious reasons, but, once again, proves my point, in terms of the extent of volatility since 1988. It would have been better to have a much more gradual transition, but it cannot be denied that, since mid-1990, a person with such a mortgage has done extremely well, far outweighing the impact of the tax changes that were made in the last Budget. That has an important effect on consumer confidence, and it is important to take that into account when one considers total consumption and the effect on the economy.
        The other side of the fiscal balance to taxation is public expenditure. The Government were very courageous in the settlement that was reached for a new control total, and I suspect that they will have to continue to be careful to stay in the Red Book guidance on new control totals in the next few years. There is always pressure to spend more, and I know that the EDX Committee—the Cabinet Committee on public expenditure—has already started to consider the control total, and the way in which it is reached, for the next Budget.
        There will always be a tendency for Government Departments to want to spend more. The reason for that is that any Minister worth his or her salt always thinks in terms of inputs. Sadly, the debate has not changed sufficiently to outputs so that the quality of the services provided by Government, which should be the better criterion, is not often used. It usually comes down to the fact that we have spent more money and therefore the service must be better. The language of how one qualifies or quantifies the quality of the service provided by Government must change.
        I nevertheless believe that, if we can stay within the control totals, that will be a better balance for public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product than there has been for some time, safeguarding the key expenditures, not only social services, but health and education. I believe that that will be recognised by the electorate by the time of the next general election. However, there is no easy way out.

        969
        Opposition Members should be careful, because the normal tendency of the Labour party close to an election is to start making promises about the ways in which life will be better under Labour because they will spend a few extra billion pounds. At the moment, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is telling everyone to keep quiet, but at some point there will be no way of avoiding that problem.
        I am not sure what the Labour party has to offer its supporters other than more expenditure and more money spent on the producers of public services. We shall watch with great interest what promises are made and the way in which they vary from the Red Book, because I emphasise that if one gets a variance from the Red Book one must say whether one will pay for it in more borrowing, which means ultimately higher interest rates, or more taxation, which would undermine Labour's entire attack on us.
        I have to say to the Labour party that one of the reasons why I am happiest about what the Chancellor did in November was that debt servicing was almost the fastest growing area of public expenditure. Debt servicing accounts for about 7 per cent. of gross Government expenditure. It had to be brought under control, and one understands why the Chancellor took those measures.
        Others want to speak and I will finish with a point about employment. One of our difficulties in this country, in spite of the welcome figures today, is that there will not be real employment growth—in other words, a reduction in unemployment—until the economy expands at a rate faster than about 2 per cent. If my judgment is right that the fiscal balance now will not cause too great a cut in consumer expenditure—it will simply ensure that it grows at a more stable level—we must find other ways to reinforce economic growth such as on the capital account for infrastructure projects, involving private finance initiatives on which the Treasury is extremely keen.
        To get the economic growth going, we need to consider supply side measures, skill training and so on. It takes time, but it is essential. All those things are necessary to get our economy growing on a stable, non-inflationary basis at a level that will have a significant effect on job creation and employment. Taking the community as a whole, there are many wasted resources through unemployment.
        The target for the Government, having got the Budget judgment right last November, is to ensure that they create the type of low-inflation, high-growth economy that will enable us, at the next general election, to face the electorate with a very good prospectus, which I have no doubt they will warmly endorse.
        8.49 pm
        Mr. Macdonald: It is easy to understand why the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) complained about our dwelling on the last election. Despite the fact that it was their fourth election victory in a row, Conservative Members are so embarrassed and ashamed that they blatantly lied to the electorate at that election that, rather than glorying in the result, they object whenever we bring up the memory. Despite their desire to wipe the slate clean and make people forget the promises that they made to the electorate at the last election, the public will not forget.
        970
        They will register their verdict in the forthcoming local and European elections and their final verdict at the next general election.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) pointed out how poorly the British economy had done during the 1980s compared with the Italian economy on a range of indicators. One that struck me was the fact that the growth of the Italian economy outstripped that of the British economy. The Italian economy is now larger than the British economy for the first time in 200 or 300 years. That was just one of the dismal milestones which the Government passed during the 1980s.
        One of the most dismal milestones of all was the fact that, for the first time since the Elizabethan era, the United Kingdom had a manufacturing trade deficit. That milestone was passed in 1983 and, every year since, our manufacturing position has grown steadily worse.
        The hon. Member for Esher touched on the importance of trade and trying to get the balance of payments correct in the future. The balance of payments has not been dealt with in this debate, but was a spectre in previous Finance Bill debates. Three or four years ago, people were predicting a balance of payments deficit approaching the scale of the current public sector borrowing deficit. The recession averted that, but as the economy will inevitably begin to pick up in the next two or three years, I fear that the balance of payments spectre will come back to haunt us, blowing off course all the fine predictions made in the Red Book and by the Chief Secretary at the beginning of Third Reading.
        Only one aspect of the Chief Secretary's speech was admirable—its fluency and the skill with which he used language to disguise the seriousness of the economic disasters that have befallen us during the 1980s and into the 1990s. Whenever an event forces a change of policy on the Government, the consequences suddenly become the noblest of virtues. Disasters become triumphs and setbacks become great leaps forward.
        That was most noticeable in what the Chief Secretary said about taxation. Previously, the Conservatives were the party of low taxation. Now, it is a virtue that they are increasing taxation and the Chief Secretary takes pride in the fact that the Budget will increase taxes by their greatest level in peacetime history.
        In the midst of all those changes of course and twists and turns, it is important to maintain a perspective and not allow the public to forget what has happened in the past four or five years. I wish to do that on just two of the issues raised in the debate so far: public spending and taxation. Public spending featured heavily in the Chief Secretary's speech. Instead of the traditional goal of low taxes, his aim in the next three or four years is to rein back public spending and keep the lid on the spending binge on which the Tories embarked a year or two before the last election.
        It is important to put the current spending position into a historical perspective. In the late 19th century, public spending as a proportion of GNP was a little less than 10 per cent. Most of that public spending was incurred as a result of the empire paying off debts from previous empirical wars—the Boer and the Crimea—so it was current expenditure rather than investment in capital projects for the future. With the coming into power of the radical Liberal Governments of the early 20th century, particularly with Lloyd George's people's Budget, there was a marked increase in Government spending, which rose to about 5 per cent. of national wealth.

        971
        After the first world war, with the further establishment of basic programmes of social protection and the strains imposed on them by the recession of the 1920s followed by the great depression, public spending as a share of national wealth rose to some 25 per cent. It was maintained at that level because of wartime spending until the election of a Labour Government in 1945.
        The Labour Government of 1945 embarked on a major programme of public expenditure, particularly on the welfare state and national health service, which increased the Government's share of national wealth by some 10 percentage points and brought it up to 35 per cent. The Conservative Governments of the 1950s inherited that level of public expenditure and never rolled it back.
        Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, spending stayed at a more or less steady plateau of about 35 per cent. of GNP. With the elections of the Labour Governments of the late 1960s and the mid to late 1970s, public expenditure increased further again, by about 5 per cent. on each occasion.
        Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While the hon. Gentleman has been making his long historical analysis of GDP as a percentage of our total wealth, I have looked up the figure in the Red Book. Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why public expenditure as a proportion of total GDP reached the staggering figure of 49.25 per cent. in 1975?
        Mr. Macdonald: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Red Book at page 23—I think that is the page to which he referred—he will find that the statistics that I am giving are absolutely right. Between 1974 and 1979, public spending as a proportion of GNP averaged about 45 per cent.—at its highest it was 49 per cent. In the early 1980s—at its highest under Lady Thatcher—it was 47.5 per cent. The difference is not that great, which is the point that I am endeavouring to make.
        When the hon. Gentleman intervened, I had not reached the mid to late 1970s. I was about to say that, from the plateau of 35 per cent. in the 1950s, under the first Wilson Government in the late 1960s, public spending increased by about 5 percentage points to a new plateau of about 40 per cent. The later Labour Government increased it to a subsequent platform of about 45 per cent.—sometimes higher, sometimes lower. It sometimes went up to as high as 49 per cent. and was sometimes as low as 44 per cent., as when the last Labour Government left office.
        Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a figure of about 45 per cent. I shall help him to be a bit more accurate. The average for the five years of the last Labour Government was 46.5 per cent. of national income. The peak in this cycle is shown in the same table as 45 per cent. of national income. That is the difference between the parties.
        Mr. Macdonald: I am glad that the Financial Secretary has put that on record. That was exactly the point that I was endeavouring to make. We have had 15 years of radical Conservative government and the Financial Secretary tells me that the difference in the figures is about 1.5 per cent.
        Mr. Dorrell: I was comparing the average over the cycle of the last Labour Government—46.5 per cent.—and the peak in this cycle, under this Government, of 45 per cent. The plans in the Red Book show how we intend that figure to fall to 41 per cent.—roughly the same as the 40 per cent. figure of the late 1980s.
        Mr. Macdonald: The Financial Secretary cannot rely on plans; he must rely on the record. The record shows that the peak under the last Labour Government was 49.25 per cent., and the peak under this Government has been 47.5 per cent. The Labour Government exited with a figure of 44 per cent. Under this Government—committed to 15 years of radical cost-cutting under Lady Thatcher and the current Chief Secretary—the figure is 45 per cent., which is 1 per cent. higher than when the Labour Government left office.
        The point that I was trying to make—I think that the Financial Secretary has helped to make it—was that of the simple and obvious failure of all Conservative Governments to roll back the share of state spending as a proportion of national wealth to any serious degree. I know that the Red Book speculates on rolling the figure back to 41 per cent., but the Conservatives have had 15 years of attempts to roll back the share of state spending, which is now higher than when the last Labour Government left office.
        When one compares the impact of successive Conservative Governments with the impact of Labour Governments, one sees that in the late 1960s there was an increase of about 5 percentage points and in the late 1970s there was an increase of about 5 percentage points. In 1945 there was an increase of about 10 percentage points. Compared with those considerable impacts on the share of public spending in national wealth, 15 years of Conservative Government have had a negligible impact, as page 23 of the Red Book clearly shows.
        I make this journey into the past to try to put into perspective what I regard as empty rhetoric—the high-taxation, high-spending claims of opposing parties. The reality is that Britain, in line with most western European Governments, is probably stuck with a share of public spending as a proportion of national wealth of around 45 per cent. in the medium to long term. Nothing that the Conservative Governments of the past 15 years have done has altered that by any appreciable margin and it is hard to credit that anything they do in future will have any impact.
        Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an interesting argument. I certainly do not accept his proposition that under the present Government public expenditure will remain at 45 per cent. of national income, but if that is his assertion and view of what would happen under a Labour Government, perhaps he will tell us how a Labour Government would finance the extra 4 per cent. of national income that he wants to see accounted for by public expenditure. He would not want it to be borrowed indefinitely, so he owes the House an explanation of how the revenue gap of 4 per cent. of national income that he has opened up would be filled.
        Mr. Macdonald: I did not say that I wished to see an extra additional 4 per cent.—
        Mr. Dorrell: Yes, you did.
        Mr. Macdonald: I simply pointed out that the highest figure under the last Labour Government was 49 per cent. and that the highest figure under the Conservative Government is 47.5 per cent.—the difference is very marginal and cannot really sustain the rhetoric that we have heard. I have not said at any time that I wished to see public expenditure increased to 49 per cent.

        973
        I was arguing in favour of fixing global levels of public expenditure and that trying to measure the success or failure of a Government by whether they increase or reduce the figure by 3 or 4 per cent. is fatuous and beside the point. That is not what we should be looking at when considering public spending.
        Unfortunately, that is the obsession of the Chief Secretary. The whole test of whether his strategy will succeed over the next four or five years is apparently whether it will roll back the share of public expenditure in national wealth.
        At the start of the Finance Bill, the Chief Secretary referred to the United States, where the ratio is around 35 per cent.—the Chief Secretary used the figure of 38 per cent. That is certainly significantly lower than the European average and lower than it is in Britain. He implied that that was his long-term target.
        Of course, the right hon. Gentleman neglected to point out that the key difference between the United States and the countries of western Europe is that health care in the countries of western Europe is largely socialised. That accounts for much of the difference between the United States and Europe. He will also be aware that the current United States Administration has presented a fairly comprehensive package of health care reforms to Congress and the congressional budget office has judged that the impact of that package would be to increase federal expenditure in the United States by some six or seven points.
        Therefore, the Chief Secretary's case that the United States is somehow a model that we should be emulating and that we should be slashing our expenditure back to American levels fails to take into account what is happening now in the United States, and the difference in health care treatment.
        Mr. Willetts: May I commiserate with hon. Member and assure him we were looking forward to hearing his remarks and drawing on his experience in the Finance Bill Committee, but these lengthy historical, statistical digressions on public expenditure ratios seem to be detaining him and the House.
        Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the point I am making because he does not like to admit that 15 years of Conservative Governments, by their own objectives and aspirations of cutting spending and taxation as a proportion of national income, have been a complete and utter failure. That is what both tables on page 23 of the Red Book clearly show and that is what Conservative Members are trying to get away from.
        The Conservative claim that it is the party of low taxation is disproved by the figures on page 23 of the Red Book, and a number of my hon. Friends have illustrated that fact during their speeches this evening. I made the point by way of intervention that, although the Chief Secretary is increasing taxes across a range of areas, it is not as though there are no tax cuts on offer this year.
        The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill introduces the abolition of sporting rates. The measure will cost the Exchequer some £2 million and the benefits of that tax cut, in a year when everyone else faces increased taxes, will go exclusively to the proprietors of large estates north of the
        974
        border. People such as the Duke of Buccleuch, the Countess of Sutherland and the Earl of Thurso will share the £2 million between them.
        That hypocrisy illustrates that the real argument between the two sides of the Chamber is not about global increases in the total amount of taxation or total expenditure; rather, it about striking a balance within taxation and expenditure. It is a question of how taxes are raised—whether they are raised fairly from the people who are most capable of bearing the burden of taxation. It is a question of whether money is spent on items which produce growth in the economy in the long term, such as housing and public infrastructure, or whether it is spent on items such as employment benefits which pay for people to be idle.
        That is the real difference between the two sides of the House. It is not a question of global totals; it is a question of fair taxation and sensible spending. That is the message that we will be taking to the upcoming European elections and to the next general election.
        9.12 pm
        Mr. Willetts: We are now coming to the conclusion of many months of deliberation on the Finance Bill, in which we have heard two types of contributions from the Labour Benches. First, we heard nit-picking comment on the detail of particular clauses. In one memorable sitting, a member of the Labour Front-Bench team managed to spot several printing errors in the Bill—that led the Financial Secretary to congratulate him on his skill in proofreading. When Labour Members were not proofreading, they engaged in wide-ranging ritual denunciations of any and all tax increases, but we sadly missed anything in between. There was no meaty and substantial engagement on the real questions of tax policy. We were not offered any enlightenment as to what a Labour Government's approach to taxation would be.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting topic. We get opportunities to discuss the Labour party's approach to taxation, but not while we are scrutinising the Finance Bill in Committee.
        Mr. Willetts: The scrutiny of the Bill in Committee was either pernickety or ritual denunciations, but we did not have the substantial debate on some of the major aspects of tax policy for which the clauses provided ample opportunity.
        Despite the Labour party's failure to set out its views on tax policy during the many hours spent in Committee, the broad outlines of the difference between the two parties is clear if one reflects on the way in which a party in government responds to the inevitable effects of a recession on the public finances. The real test of a Government's ability to steer the economy comes not when we are enjoying the benefits of the good times, when the economy is recovering and when one is in the benign phase of an economic cycle but when we are in the difficult times and recession drives public finances into deficit.
        There is a clear contrast between the approach taken by the Labour Governments in 1974, 1975 and 1976 and that taken by the Conservative Governments in 1980 and 1981. Everything that we have heard in the debate on the response to this recession and its impact on public finances shows that the difference in the response to the two previous recessions still obtains.

        975
        In 1974 and 1975, the then Labour Government tried to borrow their way out of the recession and out of the enormous deficit that occurred as a result of a fall in tax revenues and large increases in public expenditure. Their attempt to avoid the difficult decision to increase taxes to bring down the public sector borrowing requirement led, of course, to the notorious intervention by the International Monetary Fund when the City and the international financial markets ran out of tolerance for the Labour party, and a high level of borrowing was required. We ended up with cuts in public expenditure programmes—6 per cent. real reductions in one year—and those cuts were more draconian than any that we had experienced in the post-war period.
        The alternative, which was the approach taken by the Conservative Government in 1980–81, was to do the painful but necessary thing and raise taxes to reduce the PSBR so that we did not run out of road and were not still trying to borrow when we had lost the patience of the markets. That was the right decision to take in the recession of 1980–81, and the sustained economic recovery of the 1980s proved just how right it had been—we had the longest peacetime economic recovery that we have ever enjoyed.
        It is perfectly clear that, faced with the consequences for public finances of the recent recession which proved to be longer and deeper than forecast, the Government are repeating the step that it was necessary to take in 1981—they are raising taxes. Just as then, despite all the catcalls and jeering at the time, that step laid the basis for a sustained strong economic recovery. We can be confident that getting the public finances in order now will similarly lay the basis for an economic recovery in the 1990s.
        The trouble is that the Labour party has made no serious attempt to engage in any debate about those issues. Perhaps I can inform my hon. Friends who are here but who were not members of the Committee that Labour Members instead regularly read to us extracts from the manifestos on which Conservative members of the Committee had fought the election.
        There were times during the longueurs of the Committee when I found my mind wandering to the poor Labour researcher who had possibly been tempted into working for a member of the Labour Front-Bench team by the prospect of being able to think about economic or tax policies but who was instead lumbered with the task of reading Conservative Members' election manifestos. Perhaps through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Hansard I might speak to this unknown researcher and commiserate with him or her for the appalling level of job satisfaction offered by Labour Front Benchers. I hope that, next time, he or she will be allowed to research some of the meaty questions relating to tax policy that did not detain those on Labour's Front Bench this time.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: I must correct the impression given by my hon. Friend. Any offer to work for the Labour party can be enhanced only by including in it the opportunity to read Tory election manifestos rather than being forced to read Labour party documents.
        Mr. Willetts: That is a very good point. One is led to wonder whether the job of dealing with such dangerous, subversive literature had to be divided among several Labour researchers in case prolonged exposure to it led to
        976
        defections to the Conservative party. Who knows what special measures had to be taken to handle that dangerous propaganda?
        In the remaining minutes of my speech I shall reflect a little more on the sort of economic recovery to which we can look forward because of the tax measures in the Bill and in the previous Budget in 1993. I am unashamedly optimistic about the prospects both for inflation and for real economic growth. All the evidence suggests that the Government are enjoying considerable success in holding inflation down not just within the 1 to 4 per cent. target range, but down towards the lower end of that range.
        The figure for the growth in M4, for example, which is in the middle of its target range, suggests that some of the anxieties which have been apparent in the City over the past few weeks about the future course of inflation do not appear to be well founded. In fact, the problem appears to be that there are still macho managers in British industry who want to plan very high rates of return on their investments because they are making pessimistic assumptions about the future course of inflation, which seem unlikely to be borne out by events.
        When firms and senior managers proudly say, "We are looking for a rate of return of 17.5 per cent. on our investment," when the British economy can look forward in the medium term to an inflation rate in the 1 to 4 per cent. range, that is no longer a sensible way of running a business. It shows that the opposite of money illusion—inflation anxiety—is still persistent although, given the Government's monetary and fiscal stance, it is not justified.
        The crucial indicator that ties together prospects for inflation and for the real economy is, of course, spare capacity. The hot topic nowadays is: what is the spare capacity of the British economy? If we can get a feel for the spare capacity that is still stretching out before us, we shall be able to get a feel for how rapidly we can expect the British economy to grow without suffering the old problems of high inflation.
        All the evidence suggests that we have substantial spare capacity. That is not a matter of taking a snapshot picture and measuring the size of under-used plant and industrial capacity at a particular moment. It is a matter of looking at indicators such as skilled labour. One of the most impressive pieces of evidence is that throughout the recession employers kept investing in training their employees, and now that recovery is under way, there has been no significant increase in the number of firms reporting difficulties in finding skilled labour.
        The old problem of skilled labour shortages emerging in the early stage of an economic recovery appears less serious this time than in the past, which lays to rest some of the scares put about by the Opposition about training and the quality of the British work force.
        Mr. Alan Duncan: While my hon. Friend is talking about spare capacity, does he accept that one of the major triumphs of economic management over the past two years, which the Budget specifically addresses, has been the rise in fixed-term lending over five, 10, 15 and even 20 years? Does my hon. Friend accept that that significant change in lending arrangements will allow businesses and individuals to plan for the long term without being subject to the strange amplitude of interest rate costs?
        Mr. Willetts: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the curious features of the British system for financing industry, which I know the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is currently reviewing, is the fact that we have equity investment and short-time variable-rate bank lending, but that we have failed to secure something in between—fixed-term, fixed-interest corporate debt.
        The reason for that is obvious. When an economy suffers from high and variable rates of inflation, people resort to equity finance, or variable interest rate finance, because they cannot obtain the classic form of debt finance that my hon. Friend described. It should be one of the many advantages that we secure as a result of this economic recovery, with the prospect of sound public finances and continuing low inflation, that the corporate bond market at last revives. That will lay the basis for an increase in business investment.
        We have heard a lot today from Labour Members about what will happen to consumption as a result of the tax increases under the Bill and under the 1993 Budget. It is perfectly clear that if there is a significant increase in taxation, there could be some impact on consumption. However, the question is also what will happen to investment. If, over the coming year, business investment improves dramatically, with business gaining confidence as it sees a sustained economic recovery opening up in front of it, and improving prospects in the American economy and, let us hope, in the continental economies, Britain will continue to enjoy an economic recovery.
        That recovery will be based on improvements in business investment, improvements in exports to growing economies around the world and less dependence on increases in domestic consumption than there inevitably was in the early stages. As the Bill lays the basis for an economic recovery that will be well balanced and sustained, I am confident that the House will give it a Third Reading tonight.
        9.26 pm
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: Not for the first time, I have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in debate; it is always a pleasure.
        The Conservative manifesto sets the parameters for this debate. The Conservative party promised the British electorate lower taxes and a prudent approach to borrowing. It said that that did not mean that public spending must fall—quite the reverse. That is the context in which this year's Bill should be judged. Taxes have risen. The Government's approach to borrowing could hardly be described as prudent, certainly not by the hon. Member for Havant. The Chief Secretary has set the tightest public spending parameters in recent history, and is boasting about it.
        The House will be interested to learn that the first Bill to be called a Finance Bill became law in 1894, so this year is the centenary of Finance Bills. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It obviously comes as a grave disappointment to the House that the Government have not organised celebrations for this centenary; they seem to have overlooked the anniversary.
        No street parties are being organised to celebrate the tax increases, and there is no Victorian re-enactment of the Government's prudent approach to public borrowing. There is no reconstruction of late 19th-century workhouses to underpin the Government's approach to public
        978
        expenditure. I have to disappoint my hon. Friends by telling them that there is not even a letter from Larry Whitty inviting the Labour party to join in. We all understand why, in spite of the undoubted talent of Sir Tim Bell, the Government have chosen, no doubt in shame and embarrassment, to overlook the Finance Bill centenary celebrations.
        In fairness to the Government, I point out that they have celebrated in one way. They have produced a bumper edition, running to two volumes—the longest Finance Bill ever. It has been criticised for its length, for its incoherence, for its opaque drafting and for its complexity. We as a House have been criticised, not unjustly, for the way in which we have dealt with its contents. I do not accept the broad approval given by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to the way in which we handled the Bill. I point out that his own record of truancy in Committee was exceeded only by that of the Chief Secretary.
        Mr. Portillo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Brown: Of course I shall give way. I shall make more jokes at the right hon. Gentleman's expense later.
        Mr. Portillo: I may not have spoken much in Committee, but I was a determined attender.
        Mr. Brown: I accept that, when the right hon. Gentleman was in this country, he attended our proceedings. However, he was not fully engaged in the debates. I recall him going through his briefcase and
        signing coloured photographs of himself with the words, "To Michael, in frank admiration—Michael", with a little kiss at the bottom.
        I accept that the Chief Secretary's absence from our proceedings was wholly due to the fact that he was visiting South America. Of course, it is not unknown for politicians with extreme right-wing views to ensure that they keep their connections with South America in case they need an escape route. I make no criticism of the Chief Secretary for that. Indeed, I wish him well if he ever feels the need to flee the country.
        The Labour party accepts, and always has accepted, the case for informally timetabling the taxes management part of the Bill, and for taking the main tax changes on the Floor of the House. Labour Members also accept that there is a good case—on that matter, we make common cause with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—for a less adversarial Select Committee type of proceeding on taxes management issues. What happened in practice, Mr. Lofthouse, is that the Government imposed a guillotine on the whole of the proceedings, day by day, in the most heavy-handed manner.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You should address Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Brown: I always seem to provoke the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) in such exchanges. It is not intentional.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was only saying that the hon. Gentleman was forgetting that he was addressing the Chair.
        Mr. Brown: You, Mr. Lofthouse, let it go, but, of course the hon. Lady is quite correct. I should address you, Mr.Lofthouse, as Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the

        979
        hon. Lady for correcting me on that matter. It is probably the only matter in any such debate on which she has managed to correct me. Nevertheless, let me proceed with my criticism of the way in which we were required to deal with some of the matters.
        The Government manipulated the guillotine, which found, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we had ample time to discuss the consequences of the European Commission's third directive on life insurance. Indeed, we had a surfeit of time to discuss that not especially controversial matter. However, when we came to controversial clauses—the Financial Secretary referred earlier to what was then clause 241, which he eventually, quite rightly, withdrew—we came up against the guillotine and found that the time for Labour and Conservative Members to speak was dramatically restricted. That is a stupid way in which to conduct our affairs. If such matters are to be timetabled in future, there should be much fuller discussion of how the timetabling should be managed in practice.
        Mr. Stern: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I would first like to get through some of my comments.
        The Government ordered the debate so that we had to agree to clauses which enacted schedules before we were able to discuss the contents of the schedules themselves. They abused the guillotine by encouraging their own Back Benchers to filibuster, thus avoiding the burden which should rightly be borne by Ministers, of explaining clauses to the Committee.
        The Government sulked when we kept them back to vote on those clauses, and drew inferences from the fact that we voted against those clauses that should not have been drawn. They steadfastly refused to let us discuss VAT on domestic fuel, when we all knew that the electorate would have liked us to discuss it and have another vote on it.
        They tabled last-minute amendments in the name of Conservative Back Benchers and accepted them, thus smuggling them into the Bill. It was supposed to be the first Finance Bill under the new unified Budget process. In fact, the Government have ensured that there is even less consideration of the wider context, including public expenditure, than usual. The House has not discussed departmental spending plans since May 1991. It was some unified Budget.
        We complained about those points during the passage of the Bill. Conservative Members complained about procedural issues as well, and outside bodies that like to make representations to us complained that it was unsatisfactory. Some of those reservations were shared by Conservative Members—[Interruption.]—and I shall give way to one that I think shared some of them.
        Mr. Stern: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as a fellow veteran of many Finance Bills, that, for the first time, the effect of the procedure which he is deprecating and in which the Labour party refused as a matter of principle to take part, was to produce an even debate from both sides of the Committee, which we have never had before?
        Mr. Brown: I am in favour of an even debate from both sides of the Committee, but that was not what we were treated to in our proceedings. I have said that we would like to agree workable timetable arrangements. I would have
        980
        liked to refuse to attend the Business Committee on principle, but I was not given my notice until just before it was due to meet. I did not even have the opportunity to refuse on principle to attend.
        Many Conservative Members share the Opposition's disquiet about the way in which the arrangements worked in practice. They blamed the Opposition Whips Office, and someone they referred to rather darkly as Don. We, the Opposition, take that to be a reference to Don Portillo, who we feel is largely responsible for imposing what used to be called Spanish practices on the way in which we proceeded. In Committee, Labour Members would try to make progress only to be told, manana, or the day after manana.
        The Chief Secretary took a relaxed view. If my hon. Friends feel despondent about the way in which we proceeded in Committee, I should say that it has not all been in vain. When we began our proceedings in Committee, the Finance Bill, if someone wished to purchase the two volumes rather than get them free from the Vote Office, cost £27.30. Its value has now risen to £29.45. I am sure that that is the result of the value that Labour party scrutiny has added to the document. Given the passage of time, however, the increased price may be the result of inflation. The Committee sat for so long that, if I become any older, it may be that I shall not qualify for medical treatment in a Tory trust hospital.
        All Chancellors of the Exchequer, like shadow Financial Secretaries, enjoy their little jokes. Last year, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), made special mention of the tax increase on small cigars, the subtext being "as smoked by you know who". This year, "you know who" got his own back by increasing tax on cigarettes and cheap champagne.
        The Chancellor was less successful in justifying the impact of this year's Finance Bill on his fellow citizens. In a desperate effort to explain, he grabbed the first analogy that came into his head, just as we have often seen him do during Treasury questions. Predictably enough, it was about beer prices. Equally predictably, it has not really helped to explain the impact of the Government's tax rises. Three pints a week; a week is thus a very short time in politics.
        The Opposition had our worst fears confirmed when we learned that the Chancellor drinks in the sort of places where beer costs £4.20 a pint. How much in character it is for the Conservative party to say to the electorate before the election, "We will get the drinks in," only to say after the election, "Oh, we borrowed the money for the last round. It's your round now." That leaves the bemused British taxpayer to get in a £6 billion round—the most expensive round of drinks in British history.
        I want to be fair to the Government and, as the Financial Secretary would be the first to acknowledge, helpful as well. That being so, I offer the House an alternative—and, I think, a better—analogy to help explain this year's Finance Bill. I think that the Bill and its background should be restaged as a modern reworking of Macbeth.
        The irresolute and over-ambitious Macbeth, steeped in wrongdoing, could be played by the Prime Minister, having achieved high office not by murder but by toothache. Baroness Thatcher would have to be Duncan, but the Chief Secretary could stand in for her—I know that he has always wanted to. The right hon. Gentleman could play Lady Macbeth. The Chancellor and the President of

        981
        the Board of Trade would quarrel over which of them should play Malcolm. My view is that eventually the role will be played by a more genuine Scotsman.
        The scene where Macbeth hears voices reproaching him for the past would provide an easy way of explaining the background to the Finance Bill. The voices would cry out things such as, "We have no plans to increase VAT"; "There will be no VAT increase"; "Government has no higher duty than to protect the value of the currency"; "I will stand by Norman Lamont, David Mellor, Michael Mates and Tim Yeo"; "We shall maintain mortgage tax relief"; "Government should not gobble up all the proceeds of growth"; "Britain is at the heart of Europe and is a strong and respected partner"; "Those who create prosperity should enjoy it through lower taxes". "Membership of the ERM is now central to our counter-inflation discipline". Finally, to round off that metaphysical scene, there should be an old woman's voice cackling derisively from another place, "We must stand by John, we must stand by John." I offer that as a much more convincing metaphor for what has been going on.
        There is another useful scene in this modern production which would be helpful to Tory Members—the scene where Macbeth stares at his empty chair and then sees the spectre of his former comrade in arms, cruelly and bloodily despatched at his own instigation, staring reproachfully back at him. Who could we find to play Banquo?—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)!
        This is the first Finance Bill since 1987 that we have had to do without the right hon. Gentleman. We miss him. The Chief Secretary pointed to Norman's tax rises, seeking to distance himself from them and, indeed, present himself as a sort of successor regime, while keeping the resources. His argument seems to go as follows: the Conservatives put taxes up; the Labour party told the electorate about it; the electorate will never forgive the Labour party. That is not the sort of logic that one expects from a future leader of the Tory party.
        My time is running out, so all the other jokes must be saved for next year's Finance Bill. However, I cannot conclude my contribution to the debate without referring again to the tests which the Chief Secretary set us. Having said that he set the tests himself, he then said that we have not passed them. I shall present him with a test that he set himself earlier. At election time, he told his constituents:
        "Conservatives want to cut your taxes … higher tax and national insurance would hit those who work harder and do overtime."
        If he still believes that, I invite him to do the only thing he can—join us in the Lobby tonight and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
        9.41 pm
        Mr. Dorrell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), as ever, on the quality of his jokes. I assure him that there will be ample opportunity in future Finance Bills in this Parliament and, indeed, in future Parliaments for him to deliver his jokes from that Dispatch Box and to entertain the House with his speeches, as he has grown accustomed to do with considerable aplomb.
        It cannot happen often that debate on the Third Reading of a Finance Bill provides the opportunity for an agreement
        982
        to emerge between the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). However, in the debate today, the two of them agreed on something important: that the Bill would represent the defining moment and the turning point in the progress of this Parliament. I agree with both of them. The debate will prove to be a turning point in this Parliament because the Bill lays the foundations for secure and sustained recovery that will continue for several years to come—well beyond the date of the next general election. That is the basis on which the Government will be re-elected.
        That is not the only basis on which the Bill will prove to have been the defining moment of this Parliament. Not only does the Bill contain the clear basis of sustained recovery and the Government's plans for delivering that, but, during the passage of the Bill, the Labour party lost any credibility as a serious contributor to economic debate in Britain. The Bill serves to strengthen the Government's position and set the foundations for economic recovery. It has served to shoot to bits the economic credibility of the Labour party.
        I shall deal first with the question of sustained recovery. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary rightly laid considerable stress on the secure course of recovery that is provided for in the Bill. It is provided for because my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out to deliver in his Budget a plan
        "to sort out once and for all the public finances of Britain".
        The Budget delivered by my right hon. and learned Friend on 30 November showed clearly how he intended to deliver that objective. It showed first how he intended to deliver proper control of public expenditure.
        As the House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend was using a system established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in his days as Chancellor in the early months of this Parliament. That system will establish securely proper control of the share of national income which is taken by public expenditure.
        As used in the last round, the system delivered reductions in public expenditure plans of £10 billion and allowed my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to publish plans which, during the next three years, will deliver an average growth in the the total of public expenditure of 0.25 per cent. There will be less than I per cent. growth in public expenditure during the full three years of that plan. That was the first key element of re-establishing proper control of public finances.
        The second key element, which we all know is not enormously popular but which is indispensable, is the revenue-raising measures that were included in the 30 November Budget, following on from the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames last March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tax-raising measures."] They were tax-raising, or revenue-raising, measures.
        The reason for that is clear and is straightforward. When public expenditure plans have been made, we must then address the question of how to finance them.
        The Government believe unequivocally that it is better to tax than to borrow, and that is one of the differences between this party and the Labour party. Where we set out public expenditure plans, we also set out plans for

        983
        financing that public expenditure on a secure and sustainable basis. That was the second element in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget plan.
        The third element is that on which my right hon. and learned Friend is able to count because he has controlled public expenditure and because he has set in place secure and realistic tax plans. That element is the growth which will continue right through the rest of this Parliament and beyond. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was right to stress the opportunities for this country to trade its way to improved living standards and improved prosperity. It is because the Budget sets out the disciplines which underwrite that trading success that we are able to look forward to that in the years ahead.
        Ms Eagle: The Financial Secretary said that the Conservative party prefers to tax rather than to borrow. Will he explain how we have ended up with the largest public sector borrowing requirement in history and the greatest tax increases since 1945?
        Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady's statistics are wrong. The PSBR borrowing total for last year which was published today is, by a significant margin, a smaller share of national income than was incurred through the 1970s. The key difference between what happened then under the Labour party and what will clearly happen under the Government is that, as the economy recovers, so borrowing will be brought down and be eliminated by the end of the decade. That is the difference between the plans of the two parties.
        The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was right. It is not just a question of how much one taxes—it is a question of how one taxes. The hon. Gentleman used the word "fair", but he did not explain to the House how it is fair to tax at 83 per cent. the incomes of those who hold important entrepreneurial posts in Britain. How can one build a successful economic recovery where key decision-makers in Britain keep 17p of every pound they earn? The Government have changed that and we are unapologetic for having changed it. As a result, not merely that individual, but the whole community benefits as a result of a more vibrant, growing economy.
        Mr. Macdonald: At a time when every single ordinary person in the country is having to pay extra taxes, how is it fair and right that landed aristocrats should be receiving and sharing out £2 million worth of tax cuts? Does not that expose the hypocrisy of the Government's position?
        Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is on to a good point with that £2 million, but I am talking about a tax system which underwrites economic success.
        I would like to know from the Opposition how it is fair to have a tax system which taxes the marginal income of savers at 98 per cent. The Opposition claim to be interested in investment and saving. How can one encourage savings and investment in the British economy when the return from savings is taxed at 98 per cent? It is because Labour has a narrow, myopic view of what fairness represents that it entirely failed to deliver a vibrant economy during its years in office.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: The answer to the Financial Secretary's question is that we do not believe in anything of the sort either.
        Mr. Dorrell: Then it is slightly odd that the Labour party maintained as much during its years in power.
        984
        The Government have made clear the importance that they attach to low marginal tax rates and their commitment to such rates. We believe that that is the way in which to deliver a successful market-oriented economy.
        I have said that the Bill marked not only the moment when the Government set out their plans, but the moment when the Labour party lost its credibility. In fact, many Opposition Members know that to be true. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) quoted the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). This is a sad moment for me: the hon. Member for Dagenham was my tutor at Oxford, and I have always enjoyed quoting his comments, but I fear that this may be one of the last occasions on which I am able to do so.
        It is an important point, however. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher recalled, the hon. Member for Dagenham said:
        "I think the Labour Party ought to accept … that we will always be likely to have a higher tax burden than our opponents because we believe in public spending."
        That is why Opposition Members are uneasy about the debate that has been going on over the past few months: they are aware that it is dishonest, and that they are involved in an argument that means that they cannot deliver to the British people.
        Not only the hon. Member for Dagenham knows the truth of the matter; the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—who was here a few moments ago, but has now disappeared, perhaps wisely—knows it as well. He is making himself unpopular with his colleagues. He was recently quoted in Tribune as saying:
        "As we all know, the question which matters is 'what will Labour do instead?'"
        That question—the Mandelson question—is one that we have asked throughout the debates on the Bill, but we have received no answer whatever.
        I must not be unfair; we have been given the occasional hint. Last August, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was heard to talk wistfully about the attractions of low tax: Labour, he said, might not wish to tax for the pure hell of it. I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman felt that he could speculate; perhaps he thought that he could talk about such matters safely while the hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) were on holiday abroad.
        The hon. Member for Peckham had a rather more serious go in September, to which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred. Earlier in the debate, she sought to dismiss it, but I now have a copy of the document on which my right hon. Friend commented. It is a report by the London Policy Forum, which was set up by the regional executive of the Greater London Labour party. I shall not weary the House with the long list of names comprising that group, but the working party chair of the economy group was none other than the hon. Member for Peckham.
        The report states:
        "Mortgage interest tax relief should be phased out for existing"—
        Ms Harman: No.
        Mr. Dorrell: It is no good saying no; I have the words in front of me.
        "Mortgage interest tax relief should be phased out for existing borrowers. In its place, new borrowers would receive a Mortgage Benefit calculated according to their means."
        Ms Harman: Rubbish.
        Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady may say "Rubbish", but it is on page 37 of the document published by a committee of which she was a member.
        Ms Harman rose—
        Mr. Dorrell: Before the hon. Lady intervenes, let me tell her that she cannot simply dismiss this as something that is unimportant in the affairs of the Labour party. However, I am happy to give way.
        Ms Harman: The document from which the hon. Gentleman is quoting is from an unpublished draft by a working group of which I was not a member and whose proposals were thrown out. The public and the House can believe nothing of what the Government say about their own proposals, let alone what they say about ours. The Minister has engaged in downright and deliberate misrepresentation and he should withdraw what he has said.
        Mr. Dorrell: I have no intention of withdrawing. I shall quote from the covering letter to the document from Mr. Terry Ashton, who is the general secretary of the Labour party in Greater London. He is not, one would have thought, an unimportant figure in the Labour party. He said:
        "The London Policy Forum is being used as a model for regional policy forums in other parts of the country. With its detailed analysis of the problems and challenges facing London, and its many innovative ideas,"—
        including presumably this one—
        "I am sure that this document will be of major benefit to Labour's campaign to win over voters in the capital."
        I am certain that it is of major benefit to somebody, but I doubt that it is of major benefit to Mr. Terry Ashton or his friends.
        Throughout our debates on the Bill the Opposition have tried to present themselves as being against tax increases, but everybody knows that is an implausible argument. People know that tax and spending form the same issue. They do not take seriously a party that seeks to argue against tax increases while at the same time the hon. Member for Brightside says that we should increase expenditure on the health service by £6 billion; the hon. Member for Oldham, West criticises us for not spending 0.7 per cent. of national income on overseas aid; and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wants to abolish controls on the spending of capital receipts by local authorities. Why does he want to do that? Presumably it is so that local authorities can spend more.
        We have not yet seen fully worked through the proposals by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on minimum wages. Is the rate to be £3.40 or £4.05? When they decide we will tell them how much it will cost, but I am certain that if they want to spend that amount on minimum wages they will have to show the British people how it will be paid for in tax. The British people understand very well that no one can promise to spend without demonstrating how the money will be raised.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Dorrell: No, because I have just three minutes left. The hon. Member for Peckham, who is supposed to be responsible for stopping such bids, yesterday spoke at the Dispatch Box against tax increases and in the same debate she called for increased spending on child care. The
        986
        Opposition think that they can get around it by tabling amendments that would benefit a company to the tune of only £3 or £10, but that sort of shadow boxing fools nobody.
        We all know that, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said, Labour wants to spend more money. We also know that, when it does, it goes to the electorate to raise it in tax. Over the past three months a surreal argument has been going on in Britain. Labour appears to believe that the electorate will suspend disbelief and allow it to peddle these two mutually inconsistent lines without spotting the fact that they are inconsistent. But that will not happen because people know that bills have to be paid and that they are higher under Labour.
        They have good reason to know that because the difference between Labour councils and Tory councils is clear to every taxpayer in the land. Labour has sought to obscure and obfuscate the fact that the council tax is £131 higher under Labour than it is under the Conservatives. Labour has not even been able to convince Mr. Peter Kellner on its arguments.
        How dare the Opposition talk of excessive tax? It is a dishonest and fraudulent argument that they have not been able to sustain. The people of Britain know from bitter experience that Labour spends more and that the bills of Labour Governments and Labour councils cannot be avoided.
        The difference between the parties is neatly encapsulated in a single figure. Under Labour, successful entrepreneurs pay tax at 83 per cent. Under the Tories, the take-home pay of the man on average earnings has increased by £83 a week. It is the same number in two very different contexts. Labour taxes people at 83 per cent.; we have raised people's living standards by £83 a week. Eighty-three is the number; 83 is the litmus test. Under Labour it is tax and under the Conservatives it is living standards.
        That is why we should give the Bill a Third Reading.
        Question put:—
        The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 260.

        Division No. 216]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Booth, Hartley

        Alexander, Richard

        Boswell, Tim

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Amess, David

        Bowden, Andrew

        Ancram, Michael

        Bowis, John

        Arbuthnot, James

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Brazier, Julian

        Ashby, David

        Bright, Graham

        Atkins, Robert

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Browning, Mrs. Angela

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Baldry, Tony

        Burns, Simon

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Butler, Peter

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Bates, Michael

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Carrington, Matthew

        Beggs, Roy

        Carttiss, Michael

        Bellingham, Henry

        Cash, William

        Bendall, Vivian

        Chapman, Sydney

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Churchill, Mr

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Clappison, James

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        987

        Colvin, Michael

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

        Congdon, David

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Conway, Derek

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Horam, John

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Cormack, Patrick

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

        Couchman, James

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Cran, James

        Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Day, Stephen

        Jack, Michael

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Devlin, Tim

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Jessel, Toby

        Dicks, Terry

        Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

        Dover, Den

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Duncan, Alan

        Key, Robert

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Kilfedder, Sir James

        Dunn, Bob

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Dykes, Hugh

        Knapman, Roger

        Elletson, Harold

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Evennett, David

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Faber, David

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Fabricant, Michael

        Legg, Barry

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Leigh, Edward

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lennox-Boyd, Mark

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Lidington, David

        Forman, Nigel

        Lightbown, David

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Forth, Eric

        Lord, Michael

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Luff, Peter

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Maclean, David

        French, Douglas

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fry, Sir Peter

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Gale, Roger

        Madel, Sir David

        Gallie, Phil

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Malone, Gerald

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        Mans, Keith

        Garnier, Edward

        Marland, Paul

        Gill, Christopher

        Marlow, Tony

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Gorst, John

        Mates, Michael

        Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Merchant, Piers

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Mills, Iain

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Mitchell, Sr David (Hants NW)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Hague, William

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Needham, Richard

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Hannam, Sir John

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Hawksley, Warren

        Norris, Steve

        Hayes, Jerry

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Heald, Oliver

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Ottaway, Richard

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Page, Richard

        Hendry, Charles

        Paice, James

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Patnick, Irvine

        988

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Sweeney, Walter

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Sykes, John

        Pawsey, James

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Pickles, Eric

        Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Thomason, Roy

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Richards, Rod

        Thornton, Sir Malcolm

        Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

        Thurnham, Peter

        Robathan, Andrew

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Tracey, Richard

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Tredinnick, David

        Ross, William (E Londonderry)

        Trend, Michael

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Trotter, Neville

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Sackville, Tom

        Viggers, Peter

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Walden, George

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Waller, Gary

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Ward, John

        Shersby, Michael

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Sims, Roger

        Waterson, Nigel

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Watts, John

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Wells, Bowen

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Whitney, Ray

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Whittingdale, John

        Soames, Nicholas

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Wilkinson, John

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Willetts, David

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Wishire David

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Winterton, Nicholas, (Macc'f'ld)

        Spring, Richard

        Wolfson, Mark

        Sproat, Iain

        Wood, Timothy

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Yeo, Tim

        Steen, Anthony

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Stephen, Michael

        Stern, Michael

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Stewart, Allan

        Mr. Andrew MacKay and

        Streeter, Gary

        Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Byers, Stephen

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Caborn, Richard

        Ainger, Nick

        Callaghan, Jim

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Allen, Graham

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Campbell-Savours, D.N.

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Cann, Jamie

        Ashton, Joe

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

        Austin-Walker, John

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Clapham, Michael

        Barnes, Harry

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Battle, John

        Clark, Eric (Midlothian)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Clelland, David

        Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Bell, Stuart

        Coffey, Ann

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Cohen, Harry

        Bennett, Andrew F.

        Connarty, Michael

        Benton, Joe

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Berry, Roger

        Corbett, Robin

        Betts, Clive

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Blair, Tony

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Boateng, Paul

        Cousins, Jim

        Boyes, Roland

        Cox, Tom

        Bradley, Keith

        Cummings, John

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

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

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Dafis, Cynog

        Burden, Richard

        Dalyell, Tam

        989

        Darling, Alistair

        Home Robertson, John

        Davidson, Ian

        Hood, Jimmy

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

        Hoyle, Doug

        Dewar, Donald

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Dixon, Don

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Dobson, Frank

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Dowd, Jim

        Hutton, John

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Ingram, Adam

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Eastham, Ken

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Enright, Derek

        Jamieson, David

        Etherington, Bill

        Janner, Greville

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Fisher, Mark

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Flynn, Paul

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Keen, Alan

        Foulkes, George

        Kennedy, Charles, (Ross, C&S)

        Fraser, John

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Galloway, George

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Garrett, John

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

        George, Bruce

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Gerrard, Neil

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Lewis, Terry

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Litherland, Robert

        Godsiff, Roger

        Livingstone, Ken

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Gordon, Mildred

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Graham, Thomas

        Loyden, Eddie

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McAllion, John

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Grocott, Bruce

        McCartney, Ian

        Gunnell, John

        Macdonald, Calum

        Hain, Peter

        McFall, John

        Hall, Mike

        McKelvey, William

        Hanson, David

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Hardy, Peter

        McLeish, Henry

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        McMaster, Gordon

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        McNamara, Kevin

        Henderson, Doug

        Madden, Max

        Heppell, John

        Maddock, Mrs Diana

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Mahon, Alice

        Hinchliffe, David

        Mandelson, Peter

        Hoey, Kate

        Marek, Dr John

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        990

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Martlew, Eric

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Maxton, John

        Rowlands, Ted

        Meacher, Michael

        Ruddock, Joan

        Michael, Alun

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Milburn, Alan

        Short, Clare

        Miller, Andrew

        Simpson, Alan

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Morgan, Rhodri

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

        Morley, Elliot

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

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Snape, peter

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Soley, Clive

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Spearing, Nigel

        Mudie, George

        Spellar, John

        Mullin, Chris

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Murphy, Paul

        Steel, Rt Hon sir David

        O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Stevenson, George

        Olner, William

        Stott, Roger

        O'Neill, Martin

        Strang, Dr. Gavin

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Straw, Jack

        Parry, Robert

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Patchett, Terry

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Pendry, Tom

        Turner, Dennis

        Pickthall, Colin

        Vaz, Keith

        Pike, Peter L.

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Pope, Greg

        Wallace, James

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Walley, Joan

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Watson, Mike

        Prescott, John

        Welsh, Andrew

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Purchase, Ken

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Radice, Giles

        Wilson, Brian

        Randall, Stuart

        Winnick, David

        Raynsford, Nick

        Wise, Audrey

        Redmond, Martin

        Worthington, Tony

        Reid, Dr John

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Rendel, David

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Roche, Mrs. Barbara

        Mr. Alan Meale and

        Rogers, Allan

        Mr. Eric Illsley.

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

    Maternity Pay
    10.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move,
    That the draft Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.
    The improved maternity payments introduced by these regulations—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please?
    Mr. Hague: The improved maternity payments introduced by these regulations will benefit about 285,000 women a year and 90,000 women a year will be entitled to the higher rate of statutory maternity pay for the first time. Women will have greater freedom about when to start their maternity leave. At the same time, the scheme has been simplified to make it easier for employers to administer.
    The regulations before the House amend the statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance schemes and comply with the maternity pay provisions of the European Community directive on the protection of pregnant women at work, which was adopted in October 1992, following negotiation between member states.
    The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 implements the directive's employment protection requirements, including the right to 14 weeks statutory maternity leave.
    The changes to the maternity schemes will be as follows. The higher rate of statutory maternity pay—90 per cent. of pay—will be payable for the first six weeks to all women who qualify. The lower rate of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance for employees will be increased to £52.50 per week to equal the higher rate of statutory sick pay. There will be one employment test of 26 weeks for statutory maternity pay, with the two and five-year employment tests for higher rate SMP abolished. The test period for maternity allowance will be increased from 52 weeks to 66 weeks, giving more women the chance to qualify.
    Women will now have the freedom to choose when their maternity leave and pay should start, the only exception being where a woman suffers from a pregnancy-related illness in the six weeks before her baby is expected.
    The amount of statutory maternity pay reimbursed to employers will be reduced to 92 per cent. but full reimbursement will be retained for small businesses.
    The new provisions will be introduced at the same time as the new maternity leave and dismissal provisions and will apply to all women expecting a baby on or after 16 October.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the results of the changes will be to leave self-employed women at an even greater disadvantage than before? Do the Government have any proposals to assist self-employed women who become pregnant and would like to take maternity leave?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that the position of self-employed women is changed in any respect by the regulations. They are not placed at any disadvantage.
    The regulations do not concern self-employed women. Self-employed people continue to get a very good deal from the national insurance system. A self-employed woman on earnings equivalent to average pay will be paying about one third of the contributions paid in respect of an employed women in the same position, so that has to be borne in mind.
    To move on to the specific regulations, regulation I allows for the new maternity benefits to apply to women expecting a baby on or after 16 October. The first payments for those women under the new rules will be made from the end of July, as women can take maternity leave up to 11 weeks before their baby is expected. It also allows for the SMP reimbursement rate to be reduced to 92 per cent. from 4 September.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is speaking very quickly and when Ministers speak quickly something quite important could pass the notice of the House. Is it not a fact that, as required by European Community directive 92/85, the regulation will mean that employers' reimbursement rates for administering and paying state maternity benefits will be reduced from 104.5 per cent. to 92 per cent? Is this not contrary to Her Majesty's Government's declared intention of reducing the burdens upon employers? Is it not an extra tax upon those who provide employment and is it not another tax imposed at the behest of the European Community?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is correct in pointing out that the reimbursement rate is reduced from 104 per cent. to 92 per cent., although it is important to understand that small employers—about two thirds of all employers—do not have any reduction in their reimbursement rate, so they are in no way penalised.
    The regulation does call for an additional contribution from employers, and the Government think that it is right that they should make some contribution to these improved levels of maternity pay. After all, in much of the rest of the European Community employers have to fund about 50 per cent. of the maternity pay entitlement. So employers can at least reflect on the fact that in this country 92 per cent. is provided by the state, with 104 per cent. provided in the case of small employers. Regulation 2 deals with the rate of maternity allowance and entitlement conditions.
    Regulation 3 starts the maternity pay period no later than the week after that in which the baby is born. At present, it starts no later than the sixth week before that in which the baby is expected. In addition, a woman working after the sixth week loses one week's maternity pay for each week or part week worked. The regulation will allow women to start their maternity leave and pay at a time when they feel it is best for them without losing benefit. The only exception will be where a woman ceases work after the sixth week before the baby is due because she is sick for reasons relating to her pregnancy. Her maternity leave will start at that point.
    Another improvement allows women who are claiming statutory sick pay for reasons not related to their pregnancy at the sixth week before the expected birth to continue

    993
    claiming statutory sick pay until the baby is born. At present, SSP cannot be paid beyond the sixth week regardless of the cause of illness.
    Regulation 4 deals with the rate of statutory maternity pay. It ensures that all recipients receive the higher rate for the first six weeks. It increases the lower rate to £52.50 —an increase of £3.70—for the remaining 12 weeks. The regulation also abolishes the two-year service test for full-time employees and the five-year service test for part-time workers qualifying for the higher rate, leaving one simple employment test of 26 weeks.
    Regulation 5 covers the new reimbursement arrangements referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. The SMP reimbursement rate will be reduced from 104 per cent. to 92 per cent. to cover the £55 million cost of the improvements. Small employers will retain the 104 per cent. reimbursement rate and so will not have to pay a penny more. They will be defined as those whose total national insurance contribution payments in the previous tax year were £20,000 or less—the same definition that applies in the case of statutory sick pay. Regulation 6 then makes two minor consequential changes.
    Some attention has been given to the contribution to be made by employers. The Government believe that it is right that employers should meet a small part of the cost of maternity pay for their employees during a period of leave from work. Employers in the United Kingdom should be compared with their counterparts in most other European Community states who contribute at least 50 per cent. of the cost of maternity pay. Furthermore, employers' national insurance contributions have been reduced by £830 million. That is £125 million more than the combined cost of this change and the change in statutory sick pay. Overall, employers will be better off as a result of the changes.
    The changes are good news for 285,000 women. We have chosen a simpler option for implementing the changes so that there will be administrative benefits for business. We believe that it is reasonable to ask employers to meet the extra cost, given that the state continues to pay the lion's share—92 per cent—of maternity pay. We have not cut the level of state funding at all and small businesses will not pay a penny more. I commend the regulations to the House.
    10.23 pm
    Mr. Keith Bradley: The Labour party supports the improvements in the provision of maternity pay, maternity allowance and maternity leave but it is absolutely clear to us that the changes have been forced on the Government by an EC directive requiring that our maternity benefits be brought into line with those of other European countries.
    Britain has been forced to improve its maternity benefits as part of the European social chapter. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who, when the regulations were first published, commented in the press that the Government had been "dragged kicking and screaming" by Europe into introducing the enhanced benefits. Ironically, the opt-out from the chapter secured by the Government does not apply because the improvements were voted through
    994
    before the Maastricht treaty was approved. If they had not been, the Government would have tried not to implement the EC directive and would not have supported the improvements. We must be clear about the Government's real position.
    We welcome the improvements that the Minister has outlined briefly but it is worth repeating some of the crucial changes that will improve the position of women. The changes that we welcome include a reduction in the qualifying period for statutory maternity pay. In future, as the Minister said, women who have been employed in the same job—I stress that point—for 26 weeks will be eligible whereas, previously, they had to wait for two years in the case of full-time workers and five years in the case of part-time workers. Those changes will help about a fifth of pregnant women workers—a total of about 285,000—who will be able to claim the higher rate of statutory maternity pay.
    We also welcome the fact that the sums have been increased, with statutory maternity pay comprising 90 per cent. of earnings for the first six weeks and a weekly £52.50, increased by £3.70 to the level of statutory sick pay, for the remaining 12 weeks. That was part of the directive which harmonised the rate of statutory sick pay with the rate of statutory maternity pay. We welcome the changes to the maternity allowance, which is paid to those women still not qualifying for the full benefit but who earn enough—more than £57 a week-to enable them to pay national insurance. Again, that has been increased under the proposals.
    We also welcome the change from 52 to 66 weeks as the period relevant for the 26-week contribution record which is needed to claim the maternity allowance and the fact that women will be eligible for statutory sick pay if they are on sick leave for reasons other than pregnancy within the six weeks of that due date. Those are major improvements, but I stress that they are the consequence of the Government being forced to implement the EC directive, not of a general desire to improve conditions for pregnant women.
    It is important that we continue to highlight the considerable and continuing problems with maternity provision. First, although the changes have been welcomed by many groups representing working women—for example, the Maternity Alliance and the Trades Union Congress—they stress that the changes do not go far enough. The Equal Opportunities Commission states that the United Kingdom still has the worst record on maternity pay in Europe, equivalent to only eight weeks' full pay. By comparison, women in Denmark receive the equivalent of 22 weeks' full pay and in Germany the equivalent of 14 weeks' pay. Therefore, even after those changes, the United Kingdom will still have a poor record in comparison with our European partners.
    Secondly, earnings-related statutory maternity pay—the 90 per cent. of earnings—is available only for the first six weeks of leave, after which a woman must rely on the lower rate of statutory maternity pay, which is currently £52.50 a week, for a further 12 weeks. The organisations recognise that such a rate is not high enough to cover the true costs of pregnancy, birth and young children. We support that view.
    Thirdly, the lower rate of statutory sick pay, to which the directive raises the new rate of statutory maternity pay, has not been uprated for the past four years, so its real value

    995
    is nearly £15 less than it should be. If it had been uprated in line with prices over the past four years it would be £67.03 by now.
    I must therefore ask the Minister whether statutory maternity pay will be uprated annually, or whether it will continue in line with statutory sick pay, which the Government have not uprated for four years. Or do the Government intend to uprate both statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay annually, to ensure that they keep their real value?
    Even now, not all women are guaranteed a minimum period of paid maternity leave. That flies in the face of the spirit of the directive, the purpose of which was to ensure that all women workers were guaranteed a minimum period of paid maternity leave. It is considered that to protect the safety and health of employed pregnant women and new mothers it is essential that they be statutorily entitled to such leave. We support that view.
    One of the crucial problems is that even under the new arrangements the biggest group of losers will be those 20 per cent. of pregnant working women—one in five of them—who earn less than £57 a week, which is the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. Those women are excluded from the statutory maternity pay scheme. There seems no justification for such a limit, because statutory maternity pay is not a national insurance benefit. There is no direct relationship between national insurance contributions and statutory maternity pay, but still that qualifying level is used to distinguish between women who do and women who do not receive the pay.
    Numerous examples have been supplied to us by many organisations. I pay tribute to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has supplied me with many examples of women who have suffered great hardship because of their lower earnings and consequent lack of entitlement to statutory maternity pay. Under the present rules, women are excluded from statutory maternity pay if, in the eight weeks immediately before the qualifying week, their earnings fall below the lower limit for national insurance contributions.
    Two groups of women are affected by that rule. The first consists of women who are simply low-paid. The second consists of women whose earnings during that eight-week period may change and may be exceptionally low. Employers may be aware of the qualifying period and could—I stress the word "could"—manipulate wage rates during that period in some way, so as to deny women the opportunity to qualify.
    We believe that the eight-week qualifying test should be replaced by a more representative sample of women's earnings. If over a longer period a woman has qualified, by earning the rates of pay that entitle her to statutory maternity pay because of her national insurance contributions, she should be eligible. She should not be denied.
    The next major problem is the length of service requirement. By the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth, a woman must have been working for her employer continuously for 26 weeks. In the United Kingdom, there is no service requirement for statutory sick pay entitlement. Article 11(4) of the directive allows member states to tie entitlement to maternity payments to fulfilment of the conditions that apply to eligibility for sickness benefit.
    I again request the Government to consider whether the service requirement for statutory maternity pay should be
    996
    abolished so that women receive an income as of right during the relevant period. If the service requirement on statutory sick pay is harmonised, there should be full harmonisation. Decisions should not be made within that about who is eligible and who is not.
    The next major problem is the qualifying period. As I have already stated, reducing the test for the higher rate of statutory maternity pay from two years of employment to 26 weeks will obviously enable more women to qualify and that move is, therefore, welcome. However, one group of women who have lost out in the past have been those who have been in continuous employment during the qualifying period, but who have not worked for the same employer throughout.
    The Government claim to be keen to encourage mobility and flexibility in the work force. A woman employee who moves jobs should not be penalised if she becomes pregnant. Although paid through the employer, statutory maternity pay is still a state benefit and thus the amount payable should not be linked to a service agreement with one particular employer.
    The next major problem is that, although women are entitled to 18 weeks' maternity pay, they are entitled to only 14 weeks' maternity leave. There is a major discrepancy in the new scheme between the right to pay and the right to leave. I ask the Minister what the point is of a right to 18 weeks' maternity pay if women have to return to work after 14 weeks. Can the Government estimate what their savings are from not harmonising at 18 weeks and from reducing by four weeks people's entitlement to leave?
    One of the major issues, which was highlighted when the regulations were published and which continues to be a bone of contention, is the implication of reducing the employers' reimbursement for the cost of the new scheme. As we have heard from the Minister, the additional cost of the new scheme will be about £55 million a year. To pay for that, from 4 September, large employers will receive only 92 per cent. of their statutory maternity pay bill. That replaces the current rate of reimbursement of 104.5 per cent.
    Smaller employers whose annual national insurance bill is less than £20,000 a year will continue to be fully reimbursed. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from our previous debates on statutory sick pay, the Labour party is now the champion of small businesses and our policies are in place to ensure that that continues. Clearly, we welcome the fact that the Government now understand—
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of serious concerns being expressed by employers of all sizes—those concerns have certainly been expressed to me—that improving the regulations, albeit in the interests of the women concerned and their babies, puts the future employment of pregnant women at risk?
    Mr. Bradley: Yes. I welcome that intervention. I was coming to that point. I support in a general sense the sentiments that I think the hon. Lady is expressing.
    It is clear that the Government have recognised that the fact that the Labour party is the friend of small businesses is a problem for them and they have, therefore, exempted small businesses from the proposals. However, there is still the issue of the transfer of costs on to business because of the provision. It is likely that the proposal to make

    997
    employers pay part of the cost of statutory maternity pay will cause some to seek methods of avoidance. Concern has already been expressed by organisations; I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has received the briefing from the Institute of Directors that especially expressed concern on the matter.
    When the maternity pay package was published, it provoked an array of negative headlines in the press, which I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South read. There were headlines such as "Burdens on employers", "Employers dismayed by improvements in maternity benefits" and "Storm as more qualify for maternity cash".
    In its report on the operation of the statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay schemes in January 1993, the National Audit Office said that inspectors from the Contributions Agency had found that 29 per cent. of the statutory maternity pay cases that they examined contained monetary errors in the calculation. Also, employees were not always informed by their employers of their rights under that provision.
    Obviously, the cost to employers of the new maternity pay is relatively low. However, while most employers would recognise that the amount that they are being asked to pay is minimal, what is at stake—I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was making this point—is the fundamental principle of the gradual shift of social costs from Government on to employers.
    The CBI, among other employers' organisations, is concerned that it will not be long before the cost of statutory maternity pay will be fully borne by employers, as is now the case with SSP. The CBI is worried that, although it may be considered only a small burden at the moment, with a reduction from 104 per cent. to 92 per cent., it is the start of a process, as we saw with SSP, to transfer all the burden on to business. At a time of a faltering economic recovery, the CBI considers any additional burdens to be inappropriate. There is a fundamental suspicion about whether it is a process that the Government will continue and that, perhaps, the next item will be family credit.
    We would argue that employers will force down wages because they know that there is a subsidy through family credit which props up those bad employers who want to pay low wages. The Government may decide that they want to shift that burden on to employers and complete the circle.
    As we have heard—it is probably relevant to raise the matter at this stage—under SSP, the Government are to undertake a study of the implications of the cost of introducing SSP, especially on small employers, to see whether the burden on small employers for the first four weeks is inappropriate. I would welcome the Minister's comments on how that study is going. I would also welcome his comments on the wider point of whether it is the Government's general intention to shift the burden of all social provision on to employers so that the Government may reduce public expenditure and so that, eventually, employers of all sizes will pick up the tab for improvements in provision for their employees.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In view of the hon. Gentleman's newly expressed interest in small businesses, would he address a problem that small businesses often bring to my attention—that of having to keep the job open
    998
    for 14 and possibly, as the hon. Gentleman recommends, 18 weeks, when the woman concerned may decide—frequently decides—not to return to work? That is a real problem for small businesses. Would he tell us the Labour party's policy on that?
    Mr. Bradley: I am pleased that the hon. Lady takes such great interest in my political career. I was not aware that she monitored—
    Mr. Wilkinson: Get on with it and just answer the question.
    Mr. Bradley: Labour Members are taking the debate seriously and I shall answer the question in the way that I feel most appropriate. Clearly, it is not a new problem for small businesses, as the hon. Lady would know if she had any knowledge of small businesses in the north-west, in which I and my hon. Friends have taken a great interest and which we have supported over many years. I shall come on to the point about the relationship between small businesses and employment practices.
    We believe that the period up to October 1994 should have been used to strengthen enforcement of the statutory maternity scheme through the Contributions Agency and the Benefits Agency and to emphasise to employers the rights given through the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 to workers who are dismissed due to pregnancy. That is a much more important point, because the percentage of women who have sought re-instatement in the past has been extremely small.
    The right to appeal against dismissal does nothing to counteract the effect that the proposals will have on employers' recruitment policies. There is a danger that some employers will deliberately decide not to employ women who are likely to have children. That is a much more crucial point than the one that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made about women who decide not to return to work. It is much more important that we ensure that we protect women who want to go into the workplace. Given the changes in the burden of costs on businesses, there is a danger that businesses in their employment and recruitment policies will deny women the right to enter the workplace. We are most concerned that that may be the implication of the Government's plans.
    The Government have said that they are keen—I hope that the hon. Member for Billericay supports this—to encourage women to realise their potential in the workplace through the Government's initiatives such as Opportunity 2000. That means that employers' attitudes can be crucial in determining whether women return to work having had their baby instead of being dependent on benefits.
    The package of recruitment policies, the policies that companies adopt towards women in respect of their training, the flexibility of companies and the opportunity for women to move in and out of the workplace are much more crucial—
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said earlier that employers could use the family credit scheme to force wages down. He spoke of his great knowledge of the north-west employment scene. Can he give one example of an employer who has forced down wages in those circumstances?
    Mr. Bradley: I was making a general point that it is clear that the Government are applauding themselves because the cost of family credit is rising. We must link the level of wages—only working people can receive family credit—with the abolition of wages councils. Throughout the country there are examples of wage rates down to £2 an hour. The result is that employees are claiming family credit to prop up their wages. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, he knows little about the employment market in the north-west and throughout the country.
    It is clear that the Government's proposals are an improvement on the previous position. We have made that clear from the start.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Really?
    Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman would have heard me say that at the beginning of my remarks.
    We are concerned, however, about the anomalies in the system and the fact that low-paid women do not gain any benefit from the proposals. The benefits that we are introducing still mean that we are at the bottom of the pile of European countries. We have flagged up our concern about the shift of the costs and burdens of social provision on to employees. We want to ensure that the provisions are only the starting point in the improvement of social provision, and especially maternity provision. We suspect that the Government have introduced them in spite of their opposition to the social chapter and fear that they will go no further in trying to make provisions that are at least as good as those of our European allies.
    10.48 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall be brief. I would not pretend to be a social security buff or anything like it, but at the risk of mixing metaphors I can smell a rat when I see one.
    On reading the regulations, the first thing that struck me was that it would be highly unlikely that the Government would introduce them were it not for the fact that they were bound to do so by European Community directive No. 9285. I wonder whether it is appropriate that we should be legislating in this area at the behest of the Community rather than in our own national interests according to our own lights and judgment and in view of British economic circumstances. That is the first and cardinal point that I shall make.
    My second point—to reinforce the one I made earlier in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Minister—relates to the reduction of the reimbursement rate for all but the smallest employers. Later, my hon. Friend may be able to clarify the number of employers who will have to make additional contributions for the administration and payment of state maternity pay benefits as a consequence of the regulations. I do not know exactly what an annual national insurance bill of £20,000 constitutes, but all but the smallest companies will have to make additional contributions as a result of the regulations.
    The explanatory note on the back of the statutory instrument says:
    "An assessment of the compliance costs for employers … has been made and a copy has been placed in the libraries".
    I may not have heard accurately what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier. If he quantified the amount that employers will have to contribute as a consequence of the regulations, I ask him to remind the House because I missed it. It is an important matter and the information
    1000
    should be available not only in the Library of the House for researchers and hon. Members but in the record of our debate this evening.
    Businesses are struggling to come out of recession. They face too many burdens and cash flow remains a problem. In those circumstances, I do not see how it can help recovery and employment prospects to place additional burdens of this sort on all but the smallest employers.
    My hon. Friend the Minister made a comparison with other European countries—implicitly, other Community countries. I do not call them Union countries yet; I call them Community countries, and I shall continue to do so. The point is that we live in a global economy. Our competitors are not principally our Community partners; they are the thriving, dynamic economies of Asia and South America. With the European Community so stuck in recession, it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to comprehend that and to translate that comprehension into their legislative actions by pursuing a social programme which is not Eurocentric but related to the reality of the economic world in which we must live and compete.
    It may be desirable—I am sure that it is, and I fully applaud the intention of those who are promoting the regulations at the behest of the Community—to do more for mothers who have to take leave to bear children. Nevertheless, the countries with which we must compete to a large extent do not have social costs of this sort. The more policy-makers in the United Kingdom are obsessed with such regulations and benefits, the more likely they are to forget the necessity of cutting the social burdens and social costs which are inhibiting growth and dynamism in the British economy, and the creation of new jobs across the nation.
    This is an interesting debate. I know that my contribution has been an amateur one.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will at least express gratitude that the individuals who may benefit from the regulations are not expecting to receive the grand sum of £300,000.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am always glad to express gratitude and to show magnanimity of spirit.
    I conclude my remarks by focusing on a central point. It is more important for the United Kingdom—if our opt-out of the social chapter is to mean anything—to show that we are not necessarily bound to apply directives at the behest of Brussels. We must begin to pursue independent policies which are in the interest of our economy and our people.
    10.55 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I join with the expression of satisfaction that more women will be drawn within the potential of statutory maternity pay. It is right and proper that the European Union should seek to provide as high a level of maternity pay as is consistent with a modern economy.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) did not contain his recipe for the extent to which maternity pay should be paid. One suspects that the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of it at all.
    Whatever the Government claim, this change is not, to quote one journalist who wrote recently,

    1001
    "as much the gift horse as it sounds—for almost all the women who currently do fulfil the eligibility criteria will be better off sticking to the old system."
    That does not sound like a great improvement.
    I should like to highlight five points. The first relates to administration costs. It is correct, as I and others have calculated, that the changes to the scheme will mean that employers will incur considerably increased implementation costs in the year 1994–95. Indeed, if it is to be a gift horse for anyone, it will be for those who make the computer software which will have to be put into the administrative systems of the companies running the scheme.
    Larger employers will incur extra costs, but those will vary in accordance with the size and distribution of the work force and the nature of the pay system which is used. I have looked for examples of the changes which will take place. It looks as though a large supermarket chain with 100,000 employees—most of whom are women—will have to implement detailed changes. Those will include drafting procedures, training personnel and payroll staff, communication exercises and changes in computer software and will result in the chain having to spend about £300,000 extra.
    Companies are bound to ask themselves whether it is worth employing women who are liable to become pregnant if they have to spend all that extra money. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) suggested in an intervention that it may well lead to the employment of fewer married women and fewer women of child-bearing age.
    Mr. Wells: Quite right.
    Mr. Carlile: I hear the hon. Gentleman commending the view that fewer women of child-bearing age should be employed. I do not know whether he meant to intervene in that way.
    Mr. Wells: I am grateful for the opportunity to give an explanation. I am not in favour of the effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman outlines. I would advocate the employment of women of child-bearing age as much, and as often, as possible. I was agreeing with him that the measure is likely to do the reverse. It will do serious harm to young women who are seeking to make their careers in business and in other ways, as they may not be employed in preference to young men and others.
    Mr. Cartile: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. The answer is in the Government's hands. The Government have chosen to place the extra burden on businesses. That is not done by some of our European Union partners, who manage to deal with the problem in another way.
    The second point I want to raise relates to the reasoning for passing on the costs to employers. As is to be expected, companies strongly object to the transfer of the administration of the scheme to employers. They also oppose the Government's suggestion that statutory maternity pay is a form of pay which should be financed by employers. It has to be borne in mind that employers already contribute significantly to the cost of statutory maternity arrangements through the maternity leave requirement.
    1002
    Few companies, however, feel that they should have any responsibility to finance maternity pay, given that the majority of women who receive it do not return to work for those companies. That is another reason why employment of women of child-bearing age is likely to be reduced as a result of the changes unless the Government recognise their responsibility to pick up the cost of the difference.
    CBI research suggests that only 7 per cent. of employers provide occupational maternity benefits, and that there is no analogy between statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay because, while employers wish to control sickness absence, they have no reason to wish to control maternity absence if the women concerned are not going to go back to work for them anyway.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Surely measures such as this are introduced on the insistence of the European Union. Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman's party impose far more burdens on business, because it would lie down in front of the Brussels bulldozer and accept everything emanating from Brussels?
    Mr. Carlile: I advise the hon. Gentleman to ask his own Secretary of State—or, rather, the then Secretary of State—why she accepted the proposals. I understand that the Government are commending the arrangements to the House, having entered into them voluntarily.
    My third point relates directly to the impact on employment opportunities. By increasing the cost of employment, the Government's proposal is bound to reduce such opportunities for younger women. The additional costs, moreover, will not be evenly distributed across business. Some sectors have a high concentration of female workers: obvious examples are hairdressing and supermarkets, which employ a great many women. Those sectors are likely to find that they are not adequately compensated by the overall reduction in employers' national insurance contributions.
    Smaller employers may also be disproportionately affected unless they are within the very small protected area of extremely small business that was mentioned earlier. At the very least, the small employer's relief for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay should operate on a uniform basis, in line with the system currently being considered for statutory sick pay. I hope that the Minister will explain why that is not currently the Government's view.
    My fourth point relates to a broader issue—the question, in its broadest sense, of sexual discrimination against women. I think that a point raised by the Maternity Alliance at least merits an answer from the Government. The alliance encompasses not only trade unions and women's organisations, but a great many entirely objective and apolitical charities—voluntary organisations. It has attacked the Government for complicating what is already a complex system of maternity rights instead of trying to simplify the system. The Prime Minister has talked of cutting bureaucracy, form filling and bureaucratic complexity, but these proposals will do the exact opposite.
    The Maternity Alliance says that maternity pay should be on a par with pay received during other forms of occupational leave. May I ask the Minister what real justification or logic exists for saying that statutory maternity pay should be on a different basis from sick or compassionate leave when employees generally receive full pay? Perhaps for economic reasons we cannot yet

    1003
    move to that situation, but it would be interesting to know whether the Government have any basis for saying that in future we should not aim to move to it.
    In its briefings the Maternity Alliance says that by not adopting that approach the Government are guilty of sex discrimination, and it asks the Government to meet the cost of paying the higher statutory minimum, leaving employers to top it up. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that, especially as the Maternity Alliance represents a politically broad swathe of women of child-bearing age.
    Fifthly, the changes that have been announced have been in the pipeline for a long time. There has been plenty of time to consider the mechanics of the European Union decision. The changes do not address the problem of the 2.25 million women in the United Kingdom who earn, as was said earlier, less than the lower earnings threshold of £56 a week. They will continue to be denied access to statutory maternity pay.
    One of the purposes of the directive is to ensure that all women workers are guaranteed a minimum period of paid maternity leave. Maternity pay is not a national insurance benefit. There is no justification for continuing to exclude these very low-paid women from the maternity pay scheme.
    I had intended to make five points but I have a sixth, and it is not "back to Janice": it is a genuine point. It relates to the self-employed, a matter that I raised in an intervention. There are many self-employed women in Britain, and they range from highly successful consultants—for example, I know some extremely successful women QCs—to women on low pay who, perhaps, visit their friends and neighbours to carry out their work as hairdressers, for which they receive small sums of money.
    Many women in that spectrum are of child-bearing age. The Minister said that self-employed people have some advantages. I do not deny that, but I always thought that the Government set sufficient store by the initiative of those who chose to take the risk and insecurity of being self-employed to say that the advantages of self-employed status are there to take account of the problems of running a business with uneven cash flow and other difficulties.
    Surely it is not right that self-employed women of child-bearing age should be in a totally different position from similar women who are employees. The time has come for the Government to do much more for self-employed women. One action that they could take is to ensure that they are given the same rights in relation to maternity pay.
    11.7 pm
    Mr. Richard Alexander: I feel some unease about the regulations. It was not helped by the speech by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) who, if I summarise him correctly, seemed to be asking for more of the same.
    The much-quoted briefing from the Institute of Directors has alerted many of us to some of the implications of the measure. One part of the briefing that caught my eye was the reference to the fact that the measure may be contrary to the European Communities Act 1972. The institute raises the interesting argument that raising new taxes would be illegal and improper under the 1972 Act. When my hon. Friend replies, he may choose to discuss that interesting allegation.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Institute of Directors did not bother to point that out when those issues were discussed last year during the passage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1992? The Institute of Directors went to a great deal of trouble to brief Members on both sides of the House, as did many other Lobby organisations. It did not mention that point. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is simply an afterthought or pure invention on the part of the institute?
    Mr. Alexander: It is not for me to surmise the reasoning behind the Institute of Directors' thinking, but, as that point has been raised, it deserves an answer. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he may choose to respond to it.
    My unease stems from the fact that we, the Conservative party, try to proclaim our support for people who try to run their own businesses, yet too often they say that the ratchet is being turned against them one notch more each time. I am uneasy lest the measure represents another small ratchet. We proclaim our hostility to anything that imposes social costs on industry and we have witnessed—especially those of us who have travelled in Europe—the effect of those burdens on industries in the rest of the European Community. Yet here we are, proposing to reduce reimbursement of statutory maternity pay to 92 per cent.—not a great deal, but it is another burden. It is one more turn of the screw.
    The real question that the House must ask—I am not sure that it has been widely debated, canvassed or discussed—is, should the burden of statutory maternity pay fall on the employer or the taxpayer? Statutory maternity leave requirements are already imposed on the employer, and now the latest measure is imposed. If reimbursement is 92 per cent. today, will it be 50 per cent. in a few years' time? Will it be the lot in three or four years' time, gradually introduced under new regulations? I simply pass on to my hon. Friend the Minister my anxiety about the ease with which new burdens seem to be passed on to industry today.
    I ask the House and my hon. Friend the Minister what benefit an employer receives by making the payment—or is it, as the institute suggests, another form of tax? It was said tonight that most employees do not return to the same employer when their period of maternity leave has gone by. The difficulty is that employers have no means of knowing how much the measure will cost them at a point in the future. It is a small amount at the moment, but it could be increased and we do not know whether it will be.
    There is a special problem for companies with a high concentration of female employees, especially small employers. In some cases, as has been commented, it may militate against their taking on any female potential employees, and that is a worrying aspect of what we are doing.
    The whole thing, as my hon. Friend the Minister has made clear, is a result of the EC pregnant workers directive. I say to him and to the House that it is another burden on business. It is another social cost to industry. I am a little surprised that the Government have not resisted the directive more robustly.
    11.14 pm
    Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome the implementation of the European directive with more enthusiasm than the Minister has shown to date. It will help thousands of women and their families who, because they work part time, have no entitlement to maternity leave or benefit.
    Women now form 49.1 per cent. of the work force and 28.2 per cent. of all employees are part-time. Traditionally, women have used part-time work to combine their family responsibilities with their need to earn money, and employers have needed their contribution. But women have not been treated fairly. The nation would grind to a halt without the contribution of women's work, paid and unpaid—mostly unpaid—but women have had precious little recognition for that.
    The benefits system has discriminated outrageously against women in part-time employment. It has denied them entitlement to unemployment benefit and sick pay, and their pensions have been affected in the long term. The recent Law Lords' ruling said that part-time workers who work more than eight hours should have the same employment rights as full-time workers. The Government are still considering that.
    I hope that the implementation of the EC directive will be the beginning of many to come and will improve the position of women in part-time work, who seem to be invisible to the Government. Women do work and have children, and the nation can do without neither contribution. It is about time that women were treated more fairly.
    There has been much discussion this evening about the parliamentary brief from the Institute of Directors, and I was concerned about some of the statements that it contained. For example, it said that the proposed changes to maternity benefit would damage both business and working women, and that business would be saddled with the social cost, which was bound to damage employment opportunities for women of child-bearing age. It said that the extra cost involved in employing women of child-bearing age could handicap their employment prospects.
    Every time legislation that would improve the position of women is proposed, it is argued that, in the long term, it will discriminate against women. This evening, it has been argued that, because of the additional social cost which the Government have decided to place on employers, this measure would discriminate against women, so perhaps we should not go along with the EC directive. The same arguments were advanced about equal pay. At the time, it was said that it would discriminate against women's employment, but that prospect never came to pass.
    The sum total of what the Institute of Directors seems to be saying is that employers will not employ women in case they get pregnant. This country has equal opportunities legislation and it is therefore not legal to discriminate against employees on the ground of sex or against women because employers think that they are a bad employment prospect. It will be interesting to see how effective that legislation is in the future.
    My colleagues and I shall advise women to watch for any signs of discrimination from employers. I warn the Institute of Directors to remember that and advise companies of their legal responsibility under existing
    1006
    legislation. The suggestion that women should not be employed because of the social cost to employers is outrageous.
    I do not regard this as solely a women's issue. It concerns families—parents being able to provide for themselves and their children and combine work and responsibilities to their children. The employment pattern is changing: part-time work benefits women, their families, and employers. It is extremely important that the contribution that women have made over the years is recognised and treated fairly. I therefore welcome the regulations and look forward to many more EC directives being debated in the House, as it is obvious that Europe has a more progressive attitude towards social legislation than we can expect from the Conservative Government.
    11.18 pm
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one simple question. Does he want to get more jobs for people who want to work or does he just seek to obtain better benefits for those who are already in work? That is what the measure comes down to. It is a good example of politics doing harm by trying to do good.
    The provision will price women out of jobs. It will not be immediately obvious, and will apply more to women who seek to enter the labour market—often for the first time. They will inevitably be viewed by some employers as a potentially more expensive source of labour than other available sources. That could advantage older women who have passed child-bearing age, so that women as a whole may not be harmed. But women with children or women of child-bearing age who wish to work will inevitably be affected to some extent because the regulations will colour the attitude of potential employers.
    We have come out of an era when women were discriminated against if they got married. Not long ago women had to give up their job if they married—the civil service was the worst employer in that respect. Teachers and nurses had to give up their work if they married. We are entering an era where women may be discriminated against even more simply because they are of marriageable age. Their potential to have children will be seen by employers as a possible burden.
    Nobody in the House seeks to improve the lot of women more than me. I am on the side of women, and I want to keep as wide a range of jobs open to them as possible. It is important for women to have the opportunity to go to work, obtain the experience of being at work and have the chance to go back to work without creating additional hidden burdens that make them less desirable as employees.
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gorman: If the hon. Lady will wait one moment I shall give way to her.
    I want to say something from the employer's perspective. Women and politicians do not create jobs; employers do. It is important to consider how an employer views all regulations related to employment. People do not understand the notion of "Once bitten, twice shy". If an employer has experienced the difficulties of keeping a job open for a woman who has gone on maternity leave only to find that she does not return, it will influence his

    1007
    judgment the next time that he faces that prospect. One can take a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink. One can create wonderful employment conditions, but one cannot force an employer to adopt them. He may have to adopt them for existing employees, but his opinions and attitude will be coloured the next time that he considers employing staff. That worries me because, at that stage, women's interests are harmed by such regulations.
    My hon. Friend the Minister said that only large employers would be affected. But many large employers—for example, as has been said, in the retail trade—employ women. It is important that those employers remain as open-minded as possible towards younger women. Such employment provides an important source of jobs for many women who want to work part-time or flexible hours, particularly in the retail trade. It is a golden opportunity for women to return to the labour market. We do not want to colour the attitude of employers, but their attitude is already coloured.
    Anyone who shops at a supermarket knows jolly well that, in Britain, there is nobody available to pack groceries into bags. Shoppers have to unload the groceries out of their trollies and, while the girl is cashing up, all the goods flood down the other end so that shoppers have to rush backwards and forwards, shoving the shopping into plastic bags before the next lot arrives. In the United States one does not have that problem because there is an extra employee, usually a woman, at the other end of the line packing goods. Why? Because employees are not so overburdened with costs and hidden-cost regulations as to make them less attractive. Sainsbury, Tesco and Safeway are not being stingy, but trying to keep their risks as low as possible.
    That is the simple reason why, if one goes to the movies, one is more likely to have to stumble one's way to one's seat in the dark than to have a young woman with a torch showing the way. Women are less attractive as employees. If they were more attractive and did not bring extra burdens with them, perhaps more of them would be employed.
    Mr. Simon Burns: May I advise my hon. Friend that she need not go to the United States for those marvellous services? She has only to travel about four miles from her constituency to Chelmsford, where there is certainly one supermarket that provides them. The new Kingshead Meadow cinema has usherettes who show us to our seats with torches.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I give way to the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Wise: Does the hon. Lady accept that the directive does not compel the Government to put that burden on employers, but that the Government choose to do so?
    Opposition Members do not want discrimination against employers who employ large numbers of women. The burden should be either on all employers or on the state. I remind the hon. Lady and the Government that all employers benefit ultimately from the fact that women continue to get pregnant. If they did not, where would the next generation of workers come from for any employer?
    Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Lady's last point is irrefutable and I would not seek to quarrel with her.
    I am concerned particularly about small employers. I have been one and I have represented them for many years before coming to the House. Small employers encounter
    1008
    enormous difficulties in keeping a job open. I know that the regulations do not yet apply to small employers, but only very small employers are exempt. Keeping open the job of a key employee—often a highly skilled and trained woman—for 14 weeks or more, possibly to find that she does not return to work, creates enormous difficulties and great
    disincentives.
    As many medium-sized firms that face that problem will be included in the changes, I counsel the Minister to consider carefully whether the Government have their priorities right in adding any burden to businesses when the creation and retention of jobs is of paramount importance—a great deal more important than the miserable amount of tax money that the Government will raise in this manner.
    Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of divisive, high-cost European legislation that we really do not want, but are lumbered with?
    Mrs. Gorman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Had he been here a little earlier, he would have heard that point being made very cogently and that is why I have not dealt with it.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to answer the point that I have now made twice, that the measure is not a job creation exercise and in the long term, it undermines the basis of the Government's employment policy—to get more jobs for more people.
    11.27 pm
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: I rise to express my concern about those women who will not benefit from the regulations. I welcome the regulations as far as they go and note that they have been imposed on the Government. I regret that that is necessary, but my concern is for those women who earn less than £57 a week and do not benefit at all.
    Women on low wages may depend on those wages just as much as any other worker. Those women and their families may be just as dependent on that small extra addition to the family income as those who earn much more. The fact that the wage is low does not mean that it is less important to the family and the loss of that wage can be extremely important. The lower the income, the less one can afford to lose any of it. I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity to do something about it.
    I remind the Minister that when the Select Committee on Health examined maternity services and published a report in March 1992 dealing with maternity pay, it unanimously disapproved of the present arrangements. We pointed out that not only do they disadvantage women on low wages, but they are administered in an extremely rigid manner which leads to great anomalies. The fact that a woman has to qualify over a specified eight-week period makes it extremely unfair in many cases. For example, if a woman is on a bonus or commission her earnings may drop during one or two weeks in the specified eight weeks, but over a longer period—perhaps three months—she would qualify.
    As has been pointed out, there can be deliberate manipulation of the earnings pattern. Sheer accidents can occur, such as when a holiday falls and holiday pay accrues. It is quite wrong that this matter, which is so important to women, should be determined in a very arbitrary and anomalous manner. I am particularly

    1009
    disappointed that the Government have not addressed that point, especially considering that the Select Committee on Health drew their attention to it in a report which was widely welcomed. The Government have exposed the fact that they intend to do only the minimum and not a morsel more, or they would have looked in a much more general way—perhaps even in a slightly generous way—at the needs of women.
    I deplore the attitude of hon. Members who think that because the Government choose to discriminate unfairly against employers of large numbers of women it is the women who should suffer. The answer to the needs of employers is entirely in the Government's hands. It seems to me that they are doing both employers of women and women themselves a great disservice in changing the funding arrangements.
    I do not believe that employers should have to bear the cost of administering social benefit schemes. It is not fair; it is not part of an employer's job. I object particularly to the measure being used to discriminate against those who employ women. I object to employers thinking that the answer is to employ fewer women, but I object primarily to a Government who make it an issue at all.
    As I said, the Government are ensuring that they do the barest minimum—that which they cannot evade or avoid—and not a fraction more. The women of this country — especially the low-paid—will draw their own conclusions from that.
    11.32 pm
    Mr. Bradley: With the leave of the House, I will sum up the debate. However, I will be extremely brief because I think that it is very important that the Minister answers the many points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    The debate has clearly exposed the splits over Europe among Government members. My comments at the beginning of the debate that the Government were dragged, kicking and screaming, into implementing the directive were proved correct by the contributions of Government Back Benchers.
    I am grateful to Opposition Members—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport and the hon. Member for Preston—for highlighting the weaknesses that still exist in the provision, particularly in relation to the lowest paid women in the work force who are below the national insurance contribution threshold and self-employed women, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said, the Government have decided to transfer the costs on to business. The £55 million bill could have been met by the Government to honour social provision and improve the rights of women workers in this country, but they have chosen to transfer the burden on to business. We shall be monitoring that provision—and that relating to statutory sick pay—to ascertain whether it is the thin end of the wedge as regards the transfer of the cost of social provision from the state to business.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, it is absolutely right to have equal opportunities legislation and we shall be monitoring the impact of the provisions to ensure that women are not discriminated against, that their
    1010
    rights are upheld and that they continue to enjoy protection, whether they are in the workplace or at home on maternity leave.
    It is essential that we know why the Government have not gone further to ensure proper provision under the regulations and for anomalies in the system to be explained. I shall therefore conclude my remarks in order to allow the Minister the maximum time possible to answer the questions that were asked not only by Opposition Members but by his Back-Bench colleagues.
    11.35 pm
    Mr. Hague: With the leave of the House, I shall indeed try to use the remaining time to answer as many as possible of the questions that have been asked and to do so without being vague.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) said that the Institute of Directors had asked whether regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 can be used for the purpose for which we are using them. The Government's understanding of the legal position is clear: the new reimbursement rate has been set to cover only the additional cost of the directive and, as such, is tax neutral for the taxpayer. Employers are not paying a tax; rather, they are now being asked to meet a small part of the cost of maternity pay for their employees. There is no difficulty of the type feared by the Institute of Directors in bringing forward the regulation under that Act.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that the Government would not be enacting the measure without the European Community directive. I have to tell him that the directive was negotiated with other member states and was changed substantially in the course of the negotiations. Without those changes, it would have imposed much greater costs on employers or taxpayers. He asked specifically about the number of employers affected. About 750,000 small employers will continue to receive the full reimbursement rate of 104 per cent. They are about two thirds of the total, which leaves about 500,000 who will pay more as a result. That sum involved is about £55 million.
    As I said in my opening remarks, that must be seen against the background of a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions which totalled £830 million and which is £125 million greater than the cost of this change and the end of reimbursement of statutory sick pay.
    Mr. Miller rose—
    Mr. Hague: I am sorry, but I cannot give way in the limited time available.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) also asked us to remember the cost for employers and said that women would be priced out of the market. It may be a dangerous thing to say, but I shall have a small wager with my hon. Friend that women will play an increasingly important part in the work force and make an even greater contribution in future, notwithstanding the enactment of this measure.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) also mentioned the cost for employers. To put it in perspective, the amount in question is 0.03 per cent. of the national wage bill, although what he suggested—having maternity pay set at a level equivalent to occupational sick

    1011
    pay—would cost an additional £500 million. I am not sure how he and his party envisage financing such a commitment—perhaps it is a matter to which he should turn his thoughts. He also asked why the study of statutory sick pay for small employers could not embrace statutory maternity pay. The answer is that small employers are not affected by the measure. They continue to receive the full 104 per cent. reimbursement.
    The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, welcomed the measures. I recognise that and I thank him for it. He also asked about the difference between the 14-week and the 18-week entitlement. It is important to point out that 60 per cent. of women in the United Kingdom qualify for up to 40 weeks' maternity absence—the maximum—which is the longest period available in any member state of the European Community. To establish an 18-week minimum entitlement would add another £50 million to the cost of the measure. Again, the hon. Gentleman and his party need to think about where they would find the additional £50 million that they advocate spending.
    The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members said that this country was behind the rest of the European Community in maternity provision. It should be borne in mind that the United Kingdom pays statutory maternity pay for longer than most EC countries, and is the only country with a centralised system of income support covering all categories of need. The United Kingdom and Luxembourg are the only countries that wholly finance maternity pay —that will still continue at 92 per cent. in this country. Moreover, 60 per cent. of women qualify for the full 40 weeks of maternity absence, the longest period in any member state.
    If hon. Members wish to improve further on those provisions, as many of them have advocated, they must think about how they would finance their suggestions. Some of them have adopted a strange position. Within the past two hours Opposition Members have criticised the burdens put on employers by increasing the cost of maternity pay, yet they have also voted against increasing the Government's revenue. 'They have been most unwilling to say where they would find the money to finance more generous maternity pay, if it did not come from employers.
    Mr. Miller rose—
    Mr. Hague: As the hon. Gentleman did not have the chance to speak in the debate, I shall let him intervene to tell us the answer to that question.
    Mr. Miller: Earlier this evening, because the Minister was worried about his Back Benchers, he carefully explained to them that because of the increased employers' national insurance contributions the changes were tax neutral. Will he therefore go further and extend those provisions to adoptive mothers, because that would also be tax-neutral? Many of his Back Benchers would agree with him if he did that.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman has a strange understanding of what "tax-neutral" means. Today we have heard from some Opposition Members proposals for
    1012
    spending half a billion pounds of extra money. There is nothing tax-neutral about that; it would be extra money that would have to come from the taxpayer or be borrowed. Opposition Members have fought shy, as they always do, of putting forward any specific proposals on how they would finance their ideas. They have been content to pose as people who would improve conditions for some people by improving the rates of maternity pay and maternity allowance, without any idea of how they would go about it, or where they would find the money.
    The hon. Member for Withington said several times that the Government had been dragged kicking and screaming into improving maternity pay—a comment originally made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when the announcement was made. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Withington that statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance are being increased for the whole 18-week payment period. The increase is not restricted to the 14-week period required by the directive.
    Under the directive, the higher rate of statutory maternity pay payable to all women with 26 weeks' service could have been restricted. The directive said that any employment test must not exceed 52 weeks. We have gone for a 26-week service qualification for all. Women will also now be free to choose when to start their maternity leave and pay, which is an improvement not required by the directive. Furthermore, small employers will continue to be reimbursed in full—a healthy and helpful arrangement for them which, again, was not required by the directive.
    That does not look to me like a list of proposals into which the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming. None of them was required by the directive that the hon. Gentleman said had imposed the changes on the Government.
    The regulations will improve maternity pay for 285,000 women and will give the higher rates of maternity pay to 90,000 women each year for the first time. They should be welcomed by the House, and I hope that they will now be approved.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.

    PETITION

      Seat Belts
      11.44 pm
      Mr. Roger Evans: I present a petition bearing the names of more than 156,000 people throughout the country who are concerned about the want of seat belts in school buses. This is the BUSK—belt-up school kids—petition, the material part of the prayer whereof reads as follows:
      your undersigned Petitioners call upon this Honourable House to legislate to make it compulsory for seat belts (not lapstraps) to be fitted in all school buses and vehicles used to transport children to and from their schools and on school trips and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Livingston Development Corporation
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful for this opportunity to initiate a short debate on the winding up of Livingston development corporation. This is probably the most strategic issue to confront my constituency in the 11 years in which I have represented it. It also raises wider questions, as testified by the presence in the debate of some of my colleagues from sister new towns who will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, after I conclude, and by the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who shares with me the local authority that is affected by the wind-up.
    The background to tonight's debate is the Minister's decision to cut short the timetable for the wind-up by two years. That has compressed the time available for an orderly wind-up, and has given rise to a number of severe problems. I shall begin by focusing on the problems it causes for the economic development of the new town.
    My hon. Friends will remember that, when the process began four years ago, we were assured by Ministers that the solution to maintaining the momentum for economic activity in the new towns was a local development company. Indeed, only three years ago, when the White Paper came out, it described local development companies as the most effective solution to maintain the momentum of economic development in the new towns.
    Only last month, Livingston development corporation formally abandoned its plans to try to form a local development company. It has done so because the time scale available is too short, and, because once it has met the target for the sale of assets, it will not have enough left to provide a base for its own local development company.
    My first question for the Minister is as follows. Now that we have lost the opportunity to have what he described as the most effective way in which to maintain economic activity, what now? How can he guarantee that there will continue to be the commercial investment—and the planning to provide for that investment—in a new town with a very young population, where we need another 1,000 jobs every year if we are simply to stand still and cope with the growth in the young work force?
    The other aspect that arises from the short timetable, which has an immediate bearing on the economic development of the new town, is the future of the staff. They are now demoralised, which gives rise to serious problems for the functioning of the new town. The staff have a short time to remain in post, and no longer have the option of a local development company to which to transfer. As my hon. Friends will know, the enhanced redundancy offer to staff of the new town has been withdrawn, with severe implications for the staff of the other new town corporations which face imminent wind-up.
    It is a great irony that, all over eastern Europe, countries and towns are struggling to put together teams of people who have some knowledge of attracting inward investment and managing commercial development. In Scotland, we have five very successful teams in the area, yet we are currently breaking them up. Why is there a shorter timetable?
    It is no secret why there is a shorter timetable. I do not
    1014
    think that the Minister is free to admit why, but he knows perfectly well that we know why there is a shorter timetable, and that we know that he knows why. The reason is the Treasury. The truth of the matter is that, in the past year, the priority consideration in winding up has shifted from how we preserve the economic development of the new town to how we make as much money as possible, as fast as possible, from the sale of the assets of the new town.
    I am grateful to the Minister for answering a parliamentary question that I asked a couple of months ago and confirming that the target that he set for the sale of assets by Livingston new town in the next two years was £70 million, from industrial and commercial premises and from land for industrial and commercial use. Livingston development corporation has only £84 million-worth of assets in those categories.
    We are not looking at a phased sale of assets; we are looking at a closing down sale. It is not prudent, because the sales are taking place against a depressed property market, which will not give full value for the assets. It is not fair, because, in England, the new towns had a much more rational timetable in which to dispose of their assets, with the option of passing them to the New Towns Staff Commission if they were not disposed of. It is not in the long-term interests of the local residents to have such a rapid sale on such a short timetable.
    How will the successor authority find the resources to meet the liabilities that it will merit? Currently, Livingston development corporation spends £1,355,000 on landscaping. That liability will descend on West Lothian district council or its successor local authority. Where will it find £1,355,000 to meet that additional liability if there are no assets left to be transferred?
    When the Minister produced the White Paper, he suggested that voluntary organisations and charitable groups may run some of the community services in new towns and take them over with endowment packages. Again, that model was followed in England. Milton Keynes community trust took over most of the community services, but received 125,000 sq ft of industrial commercial property to pay for it.
    I am glad that there is a current move in Livingston to form a Livingston foundation, which will maintain some of the town's identity after the development corporation is wound up, and which may also provide some kind of holding body for community assets. However, I must ask whether, given the target and the scale of the target for sale of assets, there will be anything left worth holding. Will there be any serious endowment package available, either for the local authority or for voluntary groups to maintain those community services?
    The Minister has suggested that it will be possible to fund the local authority's extra liability through the revenue support grant. I do not wish to be unkind to the Minister, who is a pleasing man in his own way, and who also has the advantage of not having been in the Government throughout their period in office; but, considering the record of the Government over the past 15 years, and hearing the suggestion that we may look to the revenue support grant as the means of additional funds to meet additional liabilities, anybody would have severe difficulty maintaining a straight face. It would make a horse laugh.
    The history of the Government in cutting the revenue support grant gives us no confidence that that represents a

    1015
    long-term vehicle to provide for the additional liabilities that the local authorities will inherit. If the Minister is to insist on that as the way out of his problem, I must put it to him that, if that is to be accepted in good faith, he must separately identify what that money is, and he must ring-fence it, so that we can all see how much it is and what it is for. However, it would be much better if the Minister agreed to the English model of endowing the local authorities with assets from the new town, from which they can meet the costs of the liabilities.
    I want to put one specific question to the Minister, and if he cannot answer it now, I should be happy if he would write to me again. It is a question for which I am anxious to have a reply, as are the local authorities.
    In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 29 March, the Minister said that one development corporation had reached a voluntary agreement through negotiation with the local authority about the transfer of assets, which would meet the liabilities from the additional costs imposed on the council when the development corporation was wound up.
    That has happened once. If the other new town development corporations were to achieve a similarly negotiated package with their district councils, would the Minister also approve that? If he approved it, would he be willing to adjust his targets for the development corporations and asset sales to reflect the particular agreement with the district council?
    I shall move on to housing before allowing my hon. Friends to make their contributions. My hon. Friends and I, including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, have repeatedly told Ministers over the years that it was vital that tenants should have the opportunity of transferring to the district council at the point of wind up. In fairness to the Minister, I should say that this is one area in which we have made progress. We secured an agreement from the Minister that, if the tenant opted for that transfer, he could have that choice.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: That was the promise from the beginning.
    Mr. Cook: Indeed.
    I regarded that as a fair offer that we had to win on a vote of the tenants, and I am prepared to go with it. But what is happening at Livingston breaks that promise.Under trickle transfer, any house that becomes vacant is transferred to a housing association. People on the waiting list get the tenancy of the house only if they accept the association as their landlord. That means that they have lost the opportunity of a tenancy with the district council for the future. No applicant on the Livingston development corporation waiting list—the applicants are often second-generation families who have been on the list for two or three years—can obtain a development corporation tenancy.
    Mr. Dalyell: When I first represented Deans and Knightsbridge in 1962, there was a solemn promise that applicants would be able to obtain such a tenancy.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that point from his own experience in the area that we both represent.
    The Minister must accept responsibility. The minutes of his meeting with the Livingston development corporation in September confirm that he raised the matter. The
    1016
    problem has arisen because the targets for the sale of houses obliges the Government to go for trickle transfer if the targets are to be met. How can he square the process of denying tenants the opportunity of an LDC tenancy, and therefore a district council tenancy, with his commitment that every tenant would have the opportunity on wind-up of a council tenancy?
    I assure the House that the new towns of Scotland are a success story. I think that Ministers would take more credit for the success story if they did not find it uncomfortable to take credit for a public sector success story. Let the Minister understand that he cannot take credit for the success if he now puts it at risk, and that is what is happening.
    For once, I invite the Minister to take pride in what he has helped to create, and to claim the success that has been built in the new towns as one that he partly helped to achieve. Having recognised that success and taken his part of the credit for it, he should think again about holding to a breakneck timetable that is leading to a forced fire sale of the assets of a new town.
    11.58 pm
    Mr. Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for allowing me briefly to take up some of the points that he has made. I agree with all the arguments that my hon. Friend has advanced. The same arguments could apply to all the other four new towns with equal force in terms of housing and the disposal of assets.
    The work forces that have been employed by all the new towns over the years have been crucial to the success of the new towns. All of us in Scotland have benefited from their input and from the way in which they have developed the new towns and enhanced the economic structure of the local area and the wider economic area. Yet, for the first time in 47 years since the new town of East Kilbride, which I represent, was established, the work force are now engaged in a policy of non-co-operation with their board. Incidentally, that board is trying to deliver for them in the areas in which they are arguing with the Scottish Office. I understand that that policy is beginning to extend to other new towns; it will be probably only a matter of time before it arrives on the doorstep of Livingston new town as well.
    Why has the policy of non-co-operation suddenly been imposed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, the reason is that the Government have reneged on a commitment they gave to the staff of East Kilbride new town in 1989, that there would be enhanced redundancy payments to retain the key personnel in that new town in the crucial period leading to the wind-up. Clearly, they are reneging on a promise and a commitment that they made.
    Indeed, it is argued that they are reneging on an agreement that was reached with the Scottish Office. Morale among the staff in East Kilbride new town has collapsed, and it is collapsing all over the other new towns. Obviously, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) will comment on that with regard to his area.
    I shall ask the Secretary of State one question on this matter. Why has the Scottish Office decided to renege on that promise, that commitment and that agreement? We know that the new towns cannot exist for ever. We know

    1017
    that they must be wound up. We realise that there must be honour in the way in which that is carried out but that is not being delivered by the Scottish Office.
    If the Secretary of State does not have the opportunity to respond to that question tonight, he should write to me in detail, because a previous letter that he wrote to me on the matter has been no help whatever.
    12.2 am
    Mr. Brian Donohoe: I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for allowing me briefly to contribute to the debate. I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, like staff in Livingston development corporation, the staff in Irvine development corporation are unhappy. Indeed, the Minister may know that today the staff were balloted to take part in industrial action simply because the Government have welshed on the redundancy package which was on offer, and which had been on offer for a great number of years. That is shameful action by the Government.
    I am concerned that the wind-up programme in Irvine, as in Livingston and elsewhere, will lead to lowering of staff morale to such an extent that the work of the development corporation —there is still work to be undertaken by the corporation—will be affected. Outstanding projects that will be undertaken in the remaining two years will be unsatisfactorily dealt with by the staff, simply because they will not be operating as staff committed to their task before the wind-up is due.
    In the time that I have, I simply ask the Minister to give the staff a commitment and resolve the situation with regard to the redundancy package. I await his answer with some interest.
    12.3 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on a subject that is clearly of the greatest importance to him, and to the constituents of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who is also a new town Member of Parliament, would have been in his place if he had not been injured in a contest with the press earlier today. I am glad that his injuries are purely temporary.
    I hope to return to this point, but I am absolutely astonished that the hon. Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) did not refer to the findings of the Public Accounts Committee on precisely the matter that they raised.
    I shall endeavour to reply to all of the points which were raised by the hon. Members. If I am unable to do that in the available time, I give them an absolute assurance that I will write in detail to them on the matters as soon as I can.
    The hon. Member for Livingston, in a well-considered speech, made the major criticism that somehow the wind-up of the new towns was being pursued at a great pace. He was reflecting the phrase of some others about the dash for cash in the wind-up of the new towns. I must say that the wind-up was announced when I was the new towns
    1018
    Minister some 10 years ago. That was followed by a Green Paper, by a White Paper and then, of course, by the 1990 legislation.
    The hon. Member for Livingston was right to point out that the wind-up has been accelerated. That has been done essentially for two major reasons. The first is the rapid emergence of Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, and the success of Locate in Scotland. Collectively, those bodies will have the prime responsibility for the future economic development of lowland Scotland.
    The second is the opportunity of local government reorganisation in Scotland. We want to ensure that the new authorities—in the hon. Gentleman's case, that will be West Lothian—begin life with all their functions essentially on board.
    The hon. Gentleman also suggested that this was Treasury-driven. Under the present rules—which have, of course, been changed—the cash received by the Scottish Office from the sale of the assets of the Scottish new towns remains, in effect, within the Scottish budget. It is spent elsewhere in Scotland. [Interruption.] I must say to hon. Members that there are other areas in Scotland where there are economic, industrial and housing problems, and that is where the money is, in effect, going.
    The hon. Member for Livingston was right to point to the success of the new towns as part of Scotland's strategic economic and industrial policy. I can assure him that Scottish Enterprise will continue that policy. It purchased some £10.3 million-worth of strategic land and buildings from the new towns in 1993–94, and further acquisitions are planned in this financial year; those will include Eliburn West and Rosebank in relation to Livingston.
    That kind of transfer will enable Scottish Enterprise, together with the local enterprise bodies and Locate in Scotland, to maintain the momentum of economic development in the new towns.
    The hon. Member was also right to refer to the fact that what is important is not just the transfer of physical assets but the personnel and expertise of the staff of the development corporations. It is encouraging that, in relation to Fife, the regional council, the development corporation and the local enterprise company have reached an agreement on the transfers for the future of the organisation Invest in Fife.
    The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the possibility of establishing a local development company for Livingston was not being pursued. I can tell him that the board is considering the options, and that we look forward to receiving its specific proposals by 31 October.
    One of the hon. Gentleman's main points concerned housing. He will know that, in Livingston, the home ownership rate is close to 55 per cent., and that tenants in the new towns have taken substantial advantage of the right-to-buy and rent-to-mortgage schemes; he will also know that, in the past year, Livingston spent some £3.5 million on repairs and maintenance of stock, and some £6.5 million on modernisation, particularly in Craigshill. I emphasise those figures because they show a continuing commitment to the improvement of housing stock in the development corporations.
    As for the future, and the hon. Gentleman's specific point about my commitment on "trickle transfer", I can tell him that it means that those on the waiting list have the option of moving to housing owned by housing associations, and therefore have the rights of housing

    1019
    association tenants. That is in no way incompatible with the policy that I announced. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for praising the policy, if that is not putting it too strongly, of giving existing tenants of corporation housing stock the right to choose the successor at wind-up, which they can do by means of a secret ballot.
    We want an effective choice between local authorities and housing associations. I think that in the new towns and, more broadly, in Scotland, housing associations represent a genuine choice for those who wish to remain in tenanted accommodation.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I do not object to the choice; indeed, I accept, as a reasonable challenge, that we should persuade tenants to opt for the district council, given the choice between that and a housing association. What I object to is that the fact that people who have been on the waiting list for two years and are on the way to securing a tenancy now do not have that choice; they have only the option of a housing association tenancy, with no future opportunity of opting for the district council. Why not suspend the trickle transfer, so that those people can also have the choice that the Minister is holding out?
    Mr. Stewart: I am saying what I have always said—that the choice is at the point of wind-up. I am also saying that I think it right to encourage diversification of tenure in the new towns, as elsewhere, in the period leading to wind-up.
    1020
    The hon. Gentleman asked me about the resources available to local authorities in a number of contexts. I hope that I can reassure him on housing: the Government will provide local authorities that are successful in the ballot of tenants with additional borrowing consent up to the level of the purchase price.
    Hon. Members also raised the question of staff and the present dispute, which I regret very much. For a long time, I have had the highest respect for the staff of Scotland's new towns.
    I remind the House of what the Public Accounts Committee said in its report on the Development Board for Rural Wales. It said that substantial payments in lieu of notice should be avoided. That view was accepted by the Government. The Treasury response said:
    "Payments in lieu of notice should be made only where it has not been feasible for the employer to give the employee appropriate notice of termination of employment or to allow him or her to work until the end of the period of notice."
    That is the background to the present dispute. It follows precisely the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. We are taking legal advice—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held in police cells in England and Wales at the latest date available.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Lynne Jones, dared 20 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners being held in police cells in England and Wales.
  On 17 April 1994, the latest date for which complete information is available, 315 prisoners were held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were reported to the police in each of the last five years involving sexual abuse or serious ill treatment of children aged under 16 years by stepfathers or men cohabiting with the child's mother.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  "Police Stop" Video
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what reasons he has been given for actuality film of police car chases being supplied by local police forces to the commercial producers of the video "Police Stop"; and what form of payment was made for this transaction;

  (2) when the hon. Member for Hartlepool can expect to receive a reply to his letter of 21 March concerning the co-operation given by the police in the commercial production of the video "Police Stop";

  (3) if he will request local police forces in future to stop providing film footage of police car chases and crashes to commercial video producers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ferrers replied to the hon. Member's letter on 13 April. The supply of informaiton from police records, including video material, is an operational matter which is for the discretion of individual chief officers of police. The traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers has take a close interest in the issue and will be considering it in full when the committee meets on 11 512
  May. I understand that the information was supplied for the purpose of promoting road safety and that none of the police forces concerned received money for the supply of footage.

  Passports
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take measures to allow British citizens to continue to use a United Kingdom rather than a European passport if they so wish.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Old-style British passports remain valid until their normal date of expiry, but are then replaced by new-style British passports which are machine readable and in a common format agreed with our European Community partners. We have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Home Office is taking to reduce car crime, with particular reference to new initiatives taken within the last six months;

  (2) what estimates the Home Office has regarding the likely incidence of car crime in 1994–95 and 1995–96;

  (3) how many police hours were committed nationally to covering incidents of vehicle crime in each year since 1990;

  (4) what was the estimated cost to British car owners of vehicle crime in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office is continuing its car crime prevention campaign in 1994, with both media advertising and behind the scenes activities designed to reduce the opportunities for this type of crime.

  In addition, the advisory committee on car crime prevention has now been brought under the auspices of the national board as a working group and continues to look at devising new ways of improving vehicle security. We are also continuing to promote the secured car parks initiative and I urged major car park operators to participate in the scheme when I met them on 2 February to discuss car park security.

  It is not possible to estimate what the likely incidence of car crime will be in 1994–95 and 1995–96, but I am pleased to be able to report that vehicle crime as a whole went down by almost 2 per cent. in 1993. I hope that this downward trend will continue.

  Information as to bow many police hours were committed nationally to covering incidents of car crime in each year since 1990 is not available.

  Similarly, information as to the estimated cost of vehicle crime to British car owners over the same period is not available in the form requested. However, the British Crime Survey found that in 1991 the net losses to victims of all types of thefts involving cars was somewhere in the region of £775 million, excluding insurance and security costs.

  Parish Constables
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department what was the total cost of advertising and promoting the parish constable initiative incurred by his Department.
  513
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There has bneen no formal advertising or promotional activity. The parish constables initiative was promoted through exchanges between the Home Office and police forces and parish councils in the course of normal business.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources his Department has provided to fund the provision of parish constables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 18 April at columns 352-54.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from councils to provide funding for the provision of parish constables; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The only representations of this kind that have been received from parish councils have suggested that the special constables serving as parish special constables, or the members of the public serving as wardens, should be paid either by the state or out of council funds. In the case of parish special constables, this would be contrary to the tradition of the special constabulary. Special constables volunteer their time and are not paid, although they receive allowances and out-of-pocket expenses for their hours of duty. This has not proved an obstacle to take-up of the initiative. More than 40 schemes are now up and running.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions to his Department in the last five years have not been answered because of disproportionate costr j 2-6 or because the information requested was not held centrally; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of answers given to questions to my Department in the five calendar years 1989–93 which the POLIS database has been able to identify as fitting the hon. Member's criteria is 479. Information on how many of these questions could now be answered and details of the questions and the hon. Members who tabled them could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been(a) the establishment and (b) the number of police officers in post in North Yorkshire on 1 April 1974 and on the same date each year since then up to and including 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on police strength is collected at the end of each month. The figures set out in the table give the information requested as at 30 April in each year. Data for April 1994 are not yet available.

  Establishment and strength of the North Yorkshire police from 1974 to 1994

  Years as at 30 April

  Establishment

  Strength

  1974

  1,277

  1,183

  1975

  1,277

  1,246

  1976

  1,328

  1,309

  514

  Years as at 30 April

  Establishment

  Strength

  1977

  1,328

  1,294

  1978

  1,328

  1,271

  1979

  1,328

  1,337

  11980

  1,368

  1,355

  1981

  1,368

  1,352

  1982

  1,368

  1,361

  1983

  1,368

  1,362

  1984

  1,368

  1,358

  1985

  1,368

  1,348

  1986

  1,368

  1,365

  1987

  1,368

  1,362

  1988

  1,368

  1,370

  1989

  1,383

  1,363

  1990

  1,408

  1,380

  1991

  1,408

  1,380

  1992

  1,418

  1,389

  1993

  1,418

  1,384

  21994

  1,418

  1,326

  1 The North Yorkshire authority did not ask for an increase in establishment between 1980–81 and 1987–88.

  2 Figures as at February.

  Polling Booths (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new steps he is taking to ensure that disabled persons have full access to polling booths during local, national and European elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We regularly remind local authorities and returning officers about their obligation to choose, wherever possible, buildings which provide access for the disabled, and we have included further advice in our guidance for acting returning officers at the forthcoming European parliamentary elections. This matter is also being considered as part of our post-election review.

  Temazepam
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of violent crime abuse of the drug Temazepam has been found to be a factor in the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reschedule the drug Temazepam in capsule and tablet form; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office carried out a public consultation exercise on this proposal last year. The advisory council subsequently considered the responses to this consultation, and I am currently considering the council's conclusions in consultation with ministerial colleagues. I plan to reach a decision shortly.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people from Bosnia have sought refugee status; and how many have been granted this in each year since 1992;

  (2) how many people from Bosnia are currently living in the United Kingdom because of insecurity in their homeland; and if he will give a breakdown of their current status regarding their right to stay.
  515
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answers 19 April 1994]: The available information on asylum applications by nationals of the former Yugoslavia, and on decisions made, for the period 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1994 are given in the attached table; data for Bosnians are not separately identifiable in the statistics. The large majority of applications made in the period are under consideration and the applicants are being allowed to remain in the meantime.

  In addition to consideration of asylum applications, the Government have, under arrangements announced in November 1992 and June 1993, offered to receive 1,000 particularly vulnerable individuals from the former Yugoslavia, and their close dependants, an estimated total of 4,000 people in all. As at 12 April 1994, 626 particularly vulnerable individuals and 849 dependants had arrived under these arrangements. Prior to this, 68 sick and wounded ex-detainees from Bosnia arrived in September 1992.

  Decisions1 on applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom from nationals of the former Yugoslavia, excluding dependants, 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  1992

  1993

  January 1994 to March 1994

  Asylum applications1

  5,635

  1,830

  390

  Decisions2 3

  130

  180

  270

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  *

  55

  220

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain 4

  *

  55

  220

  Refusals

  125

  125

  45

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  —

  10

  25

  Refused under para 180F5

  65

  80

  10

  Refused on safe third country grounds6

  60

  30

  5

  1Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5 with *=I or 2.

  2Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the period.

  4Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity (para. 101 prior to 26 July 1993).

  6Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

TREASURY

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations led him to apply differential treatment to individual and district heating systems in regard to the levying of VAT on domestic fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  There is no special VAT treatment for supplies of heat made under a district heating scheme. However, where landlords supply their tenants with heat under such a scheme and make a flat rate charge for both accommodation and heat then, in VAT terms, there is only a single supply of heated accommodation. In such cases the VAT liability of this single supply will be determined by the principal element, the accommodation. This has always been the position and follows established VAT supply principles.
  516
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extent to which value added tax will be charged on any fuel used before 1 April, in bills sent out shortly after 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  There are transitional arrangements that enable suppliers to apportion bills so that VAT is charged only on gas and electricity calculated as used after the new rate came into force.

  Bank Notes (Design)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the design, size and colouring of £10 or £20 notes.

  Sir John Cope
  The design of Bank of England banknotes is the responsibility of the Bank. I understand that it has no plans to make any further changes to the £10 and £20 notes. New versions with clearer numerals were introduced last year. The size differences have been maintained in order to help the blind and partially-sighted. The colours are predominantly different, especially in the bold coloured symbols and around the portraits on the reverse of the notes.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration is given when introducing new bank notes to the needs of the blind and the elderly.

  Sir John Cope
  Design of Bank of England bank notes is the responsibility of the Bank of England. The Bank consults representatives of the blind, the partially sighted and the elderly about the design. In the light of advice from these groups, the Bank has maintained differences in the heights and widths for each denomination in the new series of notes and introduced a different bold coloured symbol on the front of each note to assist the partially sighted.

  Trinidad Terms
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the countries which have benefited to date from the Trinidad terms; if he will specify for each of these countries how much debt has been written off in total, and how much has been written off by the United Kingdom; if he will list the countries which will be coming up for debt relief under the Trinidad terms in the near future; and if he will indicate which countries have started negotiating the second stage of their Trinidad terms agreement.

  Mr. Nelson
  To date, 22 countries have benefited from a reduction in the burden of their official bilateral debt under Trinidad terms. They are: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cote D'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Guyana, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia.

  Figures for the debts owed to individual creditors, or the debts cancelled for any individual country are confidential. We cannot publish these figures without the consent of the authorities in both the debtor and creditor countries. But in total, it is estimated that over the lifetime of these agreements over $71/: billion of debt will be restructured and around $23/4 billion will be forgiven. The United

  517
  Kingdom's share of the debt and debt service forgiven is estimated to be over $200 million. However, such estimates are liable to revision since, for several of the debtor countries, discussions over the detailed terms are still underway.

  The merits of all future requests for debt rescheduling will be considered by the Paris Club creditors on a case by case basis. Thus it is not possible to say which countries might obtain debt relief under Trinidad terms in the future. As yet, no countries have begun negotiating for reductions of their stock of official bilateral debts with the Paris Club.

  EC Central Bank
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the recent meeting of EC finance ministers with EC central bank governors.

  Sir John Cope
  EC central bank Governors were invited to the informal meeting of EC Economic and Finance Ministers held in Greece on 9 April. The main item of discussion was follow-up work to the Commission's White Paper on "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment." As is the practice for informal meetings of this sort, there were no formal Council conclusions.

  VAT Registration Fraud
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount saved or collected due to uncovering of value added tax registration fraud due to local knowledge of local registration staff in each constituency in England and Wales.

  Sir John Cope
  False VAT registration by bogus business for the purpose of obtaining false VAT repayments is treated as criminal fraud. Of the reported cases, Customs are unable to identify how many were detected specifically as the result of local knowledge of registration staff in local VAT offices.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  British National Party
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has received a report from the Metropolitan police into the alleged electoral malpractices of the British National party in leaflets put out in Millwall on the 1 October 1992 and 16 September 1993 local by-elections; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has been kept informed of the progress of the Metropolitan police inquiries following a complaint made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The investigation is continuing and the CPS expects to receive a report when it is concluded.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Computer Error, Benefits Agency
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people not in receipt of severe disablement premium 518
  because of computer error by the Benefits Agency; how long this problem has existed; what is being done to rectify it; what efforts are being made to trace those concerned; what his Department's policy is towards backdating payments to the date when entitlement commenced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Jamie Cann, Dated 19 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you enquire about suggestions that Benefits Agency customers with entitlement to a severe disability premium (SDP) have not received it due to a computer error.
  I would first of all like to explain that the problem did not arise from a fault with the Income Support Computer System (ISCS). It has always been possible to include the SDP in system produced payments of Income Support if entitlement existed. The problem arose because the complexity of the criteria necessitated staff making further enquiries in cases with potential entitlement.
  This was because it was not possible to obtain all of the information to determine entitlement on the intial Income Support claim form; inclusion of all the relevant questions would have increased its size and complexity unacceptably, particularly for the majority of customers from whom the information was not required.
  Inevitably potential entitlement was sometimes overlooked, further enquiries were not always made and as a result some awards of the SDP missed.
  In order to improve the initial consideration of claims a change was introduced to the ISCS on 13 December 1993. It will now identify a case with potential entitlement to the SDP as claim details are entered and issue an appropriate enquiry to the customer, removing the need for staff to do this. Similarly, potential entitlement is also identified when reviewing existing cases.
  Corrective action has been taken on all cases identified and full areas have been considered and paid as appropriate. Arrears are considered for any past period since 1988, when the premium was introduced, in cases where the award of the SDP was appropriate.
  We are considering what further action may be necessary to establish the extent of the problem and identify any further cases which may not have been correctly awarded the SDP. If any are identified enquiries will be made before they are referred to the adjudicating authorities who will consider whether, and from when, the SDP can be paid.
  I should explain that all claims to social security benefits are decided in the first instance by an Adjudication Officer who applies statute and caselaw to a customers circumstances before making a decision about entitlement. If a person disagrees with their decisions they have the right of appeal to the Independant Tribunal Service. There is a further right of appeal, but only on a point of law, to the Social Security Commissioners.
  These authorities, appointed in consequence of an Act of Parliament, are independant of both the Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency. Consequently no Government Minister or official can comment on their decisions or intervene in matters for which they are responsible.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to remove legislative barriers to improved handling of appeals to social security appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Hague
  Amendments to the social security adjudication regulations have been laid today to make a
  519
  number of changes which will streamline the handling of appeals by the independent tribunal service. The main purpose of these minor and technical amendments is to ensure that before a date is arranged for an appeal hearing all necessary preliminary work can be completed.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average value of weekly state pension paid(a) four weeks in arrears and (b) 13 weeks in arrears.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the population of working age in Britain is(a) currently contributing to the state earnings-related pension scheme or (b) currently opted out of SERPS and is earning above the national insurance minimum contributions level.

  Mr. Hague
  During 1991–92, the latest date for which information is available, of the population of working age in Great Britain with earnings above the national insurance lower earnings level:

  (a) 15.4 per cent. paid national insurance contributions to count towards the state earnings-related pension scheme;

  (b) 34.2 per cent. were contracted out of SERPS, including those who are members of an appropriate personal pension scheme;

  (c) 3 per cent. worked in both contracted in and contracted out employments.

  Source: I per cent. sample of the national insurance recording system and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-1992 population estimates.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receive their state pension via automated credit transfer(a) four weeks in arrears and (b) 13 weeks in arrears.

  Mr. Hague
  At March this year, an estimated 2,550,000 pensioners received their state pension by automated credit transfer four weekly in arrears; and an estimated 85,000 received their state pension by automated credit transfer 13-weekly in arrears.

  Benefits (Habitual Residence Test)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 164, what views his Department's legal advisers have expressed on his proposals applying an habitual residence test to the payment of benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department's legal advisers believe that the proposals are in accordance with Community law.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aero-engine Development
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what analysis he has undertaken into the relative Government support received by Rolls-Royce, Pratt and Witney and General Electric concerning aero-engine development.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United States aero-engine industry receives no direct financial support from the United States 520
  Government. However, indirect support, primarily from NASA and the Department of Defence for research and development, is estimated by the United Kingdom industry to be approximately $760 million per annum. Due in part to the high level of indirect support provided by the United States Government to its aircraft industry, the United Kingdom has been seeking a new GATT agreement on trade in civil aircraft to provide strict and fair limits on all classes of Government support for the aerospace industry.

  Currently Rolls-Royce receives around £5 million under a number of DTI schemes. The Ministry of Defence, including the Defence Research Agency, currently spends around £51 million with Rolls-Royce on aero-engine research technology demonstration and development contracts.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of repayments of launch aid have been made by Rolls-Royce to the Exchequer in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Launch aid repayments made by Rolls-Royce for each year since 1986 are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  22·2

  1987–88

  25·2

  1988–89

  21·5

  1989–90

  31·9

  1990–91

  17·3

  1991–92

  27·3

  1992–93

  33·6

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much Government assistance has been given to Rolls-Royce since 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Approximately £196 million has been provided to Rolls-Royce under a number of schemes since 1986.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board
  of Trade how many firework-related injuries were referred to hospitals in the period around 5 November 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  According to reports from accident and emergency units in hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland, 1,058 people required treatment for injuries caused by fireworks, an increase of 12 per cent. over the total number of injuries reported in 1992.

  A breakdown of the figures for 1993 and for the previous four years by region, type of injury and kind of firework involved is being placed today in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Virtually half the injuries were due to illegal misuse of fireworks in the streets or public places—338—and to sparklers—189. Injuries in the 16 to 20-year age group were 12 per cent. lower than in 1992.

  Notwithstanding annual average sales of 100 million fireworks, I remain concerned at the number of firework injuries.

  My Department is in touch with representatives of the fireworks industry and of enforcement authorities to discuss ways in which firework injuries can be reduced.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the ECGD will become a next steps agency.

  Mr. Heseltine
  ECGD's status has recently been reviewed as part of the Government's ongoing next steps programme. In the light of this Ministers have concluded that ECGD's current status as a separate Government Department remains best suited, in present circumstances, to the achievement of its aims and objectives. This conclusion reflects, in part, the continuing high level of ministerial involvement in ECGD's business. The circumstances bearing on this conclusion will be considered again in three years' time to determine whether there has been any material change which would justify a further formal status review.

  Coal Industry (Mine Plans)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current location of the abandoned mine plans for the Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland coalfields.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that British Coal holds abandoned mine plans, on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, at Bretby in Staffordshire.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether consultants retained by him on the review of the Warren Springs laboratory of AEA Technology have advised him of conflicts of interest.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Generating Industry (Government Support)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total financial support from the Government during 1993, direct and indirect, including research, given to(a) coal-fired power generation, (b) nuclear power, (c) gas-fired power generation, (d) oil-fired power generation, (e) wind power and (f) wave power.

  Mr. Eggar
  Financial support is given to the power generation industry through the fossil fuel levy. In 1992–93 the levy raised 1,348 million: of this some 98 per cent. went to nuclear £power generators, and 2 per cent. to renewable generators. The proportion of levy receipts going to renewable generators is expected to increase during the 1990s, as more renewable generating plant is commissioned.

  Information on the Government's expenditure on energy research and development is published in "Trade and Industry—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97", Cm 2504, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The estimated outturn for 1993–94 expenditure on R and D on renewables and novel sources of energy given at page 57 includes £7.31 million for wind power and £0.196 million for wave power.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the location of those proposals for wind energy submitted for the new round of contracts under 522
  non-fossil fuel obligation 3 which are sited in Wales; and if he will give (a) the size, (b) the proposers and (c) other details of each such proposed new site in Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the appropriate regional electricity companies and their agent, the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd, which is co-ordinating applications from generators seeking contracts under the proposed third renewables order.

  City (Short-termism)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department will take to deal with the short-termism of the City.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Although the issue is unproven, there is a perception that short-termism exists. A lack of effective dialogue between companies and their shareholders may lead to short-term attitudes; by companies with regard to their investment decisions, and investors with regard to their shareholdings. My Department will continue to support initiatives which can lead to an improved level of understanding between the City and industry.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice he has given Professor Littlechild concerning the potential subsidisation of the retail activities of regional electricity companies through their electricity supply functions.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. It is a condition of regional electricity companies' licences that they may not cross-subsidise between their separate businesses.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints have been received by his Department from customers of regional electricity companies who believe that through the price of electricity they subsidise the retail activities of those companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over the last financial year, 1993–94, the Department of Trade and Industry has received no complaints from consumers on this matter.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information is collected by 0141-.ER concerning the retail activities of regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Director General of Electricity Supply has no power to intervene in the running of the regional electricity companies' retail businesses. A condition in their licences ensures that the RECs may not cross-subsidise between their separate businesses, and the Director General has a duty to collect information to ensure that this is the case.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount received from the flotation of the regional electricity companies; and what is their total current value.

  Mr. Eggar
  Proceeds from the sale of shares in the RECs was £5,040 million. In addition the companies were floated with a debt to the Government of £2,815 million.
  523
  Some of this debt has already been paid back to the Treasury and some has yet to be redeemed. Total proceeds of the sale, therefore, will amount to £7,855 million.

  As with most other public limited companies the current values of the regional electricity companies are publicly quoted and vary on a day to day basis.

  Figures are given to the nearest million pounds.

  National Grid
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the esimated value of the National Grid following demerger from the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the current owners of the company to assess.

  Coal Industry Bill
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 April, column 106, if he will place in the Library a copy of the National Rivers Authority's response to the consultation exercise on the Coal Authority explanatory note and draft model licensing and leasing documents.

  Mr. Eggar
  The response has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Arms Exports (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make it his policy to halt immediately all arms exports to Indonesia if it is established that weapons or military vehicles which have been manufactured in Britain and exported to Indonesia are being used against the people of East Timor;

  (2) what guarantees he has received from the Indonesian Government that British aircraft and weapons which have been exported to Indonesia will not be used against the people of East Timor.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Specific assurances have been given to the Government in respect of Hawk aircraft sales.

  Because all applications for licensable goods are subject to strict controls and are scrutinised on a case by case basis, no further assurances or guarantees have been deemed necessary.

  If we believe that a prospective purchase of military goods is likely to be used for repressive purposes against a civilian population, the application is rejected.

  If there is any evidence of British military equipment being used for repressive purposes against civilians I shall certainly consider it.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cleaners
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many cleaners are employed within the House and its associated offices; how many hours on average each cleaner works; and what is the hourly rate of pay for each grade of cleaner.

  Mr. Beith
  The House currently employs one full-time cleaner working 37 hours per week and 69 part-time 524
  cleaners working 17 hours per week in the Serjeant at Arms Department and one part-time cleaner in charge working 30 hours per week and four part-time cleaners working 28¼ hours per week in the Department of the Library. In negotiations recently concluded between management and the relevant trade union representatives, the number of part-time cleaners in the Serjeant's Department will, over time, be reduced to 62 by natural wastage.

  The hourly rate of pay of the cleaners is £4.7044 per hour, rising to £4.78 after five years' service, and that of the cleaner in charge is £4.94/0.37 depending on length of service, rising to £5.56 after three years' satisfactory service and £5.75 after a further three years satisfactory service.

  Exhibitions (Upper Waiting Hall)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to education in developing countries to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 16 May to Friday 20 May.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Government Agencies
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds are being made available to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of Government agencies.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The National Audit Office's budget of £36.5 million for 1994–95 includes provision both for financial audit of Government Departments, executive agencies, and a wide range of other public sector bodies, and for value for money investigations. As my hon. Friend will know, the forward investigation programme of the National Audit Office is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

  Register of Members' Interests
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 513, for what reason the original HMSO estimate for the printing and publishing costs of the December 1992 Register of Members' Interests, HC 325 of 1992–93 was incorrect; by what percentage the revised figure differs from the previous estimate; what is the basis for those estimated costs and their revision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to Her Majesty's Stationery Office under its chief executive. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Mr. P. Freeman to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 19 April 1994:

  525
  As you are aware, your Parliamentary Question to the Lord President of the Council, about the HMSO estimates for the printing and publishing costs of the December 1992 Register of Members' Interests has been referred to me for reply.
  Regrettably, the cause for the error in the costs quoted in the Register was a calculation mistake which occurred within HMSO. In order to prevent any repetition, our verification procedure has been strengthened.
  The revised cost estimate is 150 per cent. of the former incorrect figure. The production costs of preparation, pre-press, printing, finishing, packing and distribution provide the principle basis for HMSO cost estimates; publishing costs are normally calculated as a percentage addition.
  Please let me know if I can help further.

TRANSPORT

  M25
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects to be in a position to publish his proposals for additional capacity on the M25 between junctions 10 and 12;

  (2) what criteria his Department is using in preparing the design of any proposals to provide additional capacity on the M25 between junctions 10 and 12; and what possibilities are being examined.

  Mr. Key
  These questions relate to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my right hon. Friend.

  Year

  Route/Scheme

  Total cost (£ million)

  Grant or Loan

  To whom grant or loan authorised

  Scheme description

  1990 to 1991

  A606 Little Wymondley bypass, Hertfordshire

  11·3

  100 per cent. grant

  Hertfordshire county council

  Dual two-lane all-purpose bypass

  1990 to 1991

  A418 Wing bypass, Buckinghamshire

  18·3

  100 per cent. grant

  Buckinghamshire county council

  Dual two-lane all-purpose bypass

  1990 to 1991

  A134 Fornham St. Martin, Suffolk

  4·2

  100 per cent. grant

  Suffolk county council

  Dual two-lane all-purpose bypass

  1991 to 1992

  A6(M) M56 (Manchester airport link) central section, Cheshire

  14·8

  100 per cent. grant

  Cheshire county council

  Part of dual carriage way A34 Wilmslow and Handford bypass

  1991 to 1992

  A16 Market Deeping/Deeping St. James bypass, Lincolnshire

  5·8

  100 per cent. grant

  Lincolnshire county council

  Dual two-lane all-purpose bypass

  1992 to 1993

  Al2 Lowestoft eastern relief road, Suffolk

  3·57

  100 per cent. grant

  Suffolk county council

  Single carriageway relief road

  Section 272 grants were awarded to these schemes because the Department intends to trunk the route and these improvements would offer significant benefits to the road network.

  Rail Services, South-West
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received in 1994 from north Devon about the future of rail services in the south-west.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has received two representations from north Devon about the future of rail services in the south-west. Both concerned the future of the Exeter to Barnstaple line.
  526
  Letter from Mr. L Haynes to Sir Cranley Onslow, dated 19 April 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the provision of additional capacity between junctions 10 and 12 of the M25.
  Consultants have been asked to investigate options for increasing the capacity of this section of the motorway beyond dual four lanes to meet the traffic needs of this busy section of the M25 taking into account of environmental and economic constraints.
  Following the recent Roads Review, this scheme is in the Priority 2 category. It is necessary, therefore, to reassess the programme. This process is not expected to take very long but until it has been completed I am afraid I am unable to say when any proposals could be published. I will write to you again then.

  Highway Scheme Funding
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the highway schemes funded under section 272 of the Highways Act 1980, in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 showing(a) the total cost of each scheme, (b) the amount of the grant under section 272 and whether it was a grant or a loan, (c) to whom the grant or loan was authorised, (d) the reasons for using this procedure and (e) a description of the scheme.

  Mr. Key
  Details of the highway schemes that the Department agreed in principle would be funded under section 272 of the Highways Act 1980 in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 are as follows:

  Transport Council
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the results of the Transport Council held in Luxembourg on 18 April.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 18 April. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council had further discussions following the wise men's report on the airline industry. The Commission will present an action plan to the June Council. There is increasing support for the United Kingdom position on the need to implement in full the third aviation package and to have new Commission guidelines to deal with state aids.

  Although there was some support for the United Kingdom view that the work on the opening of negotiations on air and road transport agreements with

  527
  Switzerland should be resumed, further discussion was postponed until after the General Affairs Council in May has considered the wider implications of the recent Swiss referendum on lorry transit.

  The Council asked for the draft directive on Community railway licensing to be further developed. Most member states, including the United Kingdom, favoured restricting its scope to operators of international services. More detailed discussions will take place before the proposal returns to the Council.

  The Council remitted for further consideration by officials a proposed directive on transport of dangerous goods by road which seeks to extend to transport within a member state the provisions of a European agreement on such transport internationally.

  The Council instructed the Commission to open negotiations on road transit with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania; and asked officials to consider further a mandate for wider negotiations on road transport with central and eastern European countries.

  The Commission reported on progress on the continuing negotiations with east European countries on an agreement for the inland waterway sector. The Commission presented its proposal for a decision establishing guidelines for trans-European transport networks covering all modes of transport. I welcomed the proposal while highlighting the United Kingdom concern that trans-European network funding should not distort competition. I also mentioned that the United Kingdom would be likely to request changes to the United Kingdom network following the United Kingdom national roads programme review.

  Other matters mentioned included Commission discussions with the United States of America on aviation and maritime issues and progress in the working groups on road safety. I undertook to send colleagues copies of the Donaldson report on the protection of the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from shipping when it is published. I propose to place it on the agenda for the next Council in June.

  No votes were taken on any of the items.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sites of special scientific interest will have been saved by the recent Government announcements in relation to the roads programme.

  Mr. Key
  As a result of our recent review of the national road programme for England, eight sites of special scientific interest which could have been affected directly or indirectly by road schemes are no longer affected.

  A5
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the second public inquiry into the Sheep lane junction on the A5 north of Dunstable will commence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The development of this scheme is now an operational matter for the Highways Agency. The chief executive has written to my hon. Friend about the revised proposals for the Sheep lane junction.
  528
  Letter from Mr. L. Haynes to Sir David Madel, dated 19 April 1994:
  Robert Key, Minister for Roads and Traffic, has asked me to reply to your question about development plans for the A5, Sheep Lane junction as responsibility for taking the scheme forward will now rest with the Highways Agency.
  As I think you know, the Inspector at the first Public Inquiry rejected the Department's proposals for improvement of the junction by means of grade separation and recommended, instead, a roundabout solution. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport accepted this and a roundabout scheme is now being developed by the Agency's Eastern Regional Office.
  An option report is expected within the next 6 weeks. Following this, we should be in a position to publish draft Orders in the Autumn. The publication process will ensure that all those with an interest in the scheme will be able to register their views.
  It is too soon to say whether a Public Inquiry will be necessary as this will depend on the weight and nature of objections received. If one is required then it is likely to be held around six months after publication of the draft Orders.
  Progress thereafter will depend on satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and availability of funds.
  I shall ensure that you are kept informed of key stage developments.

  Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received the report from the working group of officials on the options for privatisation of the national air traffic services of the Civil Aviation Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have received the working group report, which I am currently considering, and I hope to announce my response shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many parliamentary questions to his Department in the past five years have not been answered because of disproportionate cost or because the information requested was not held centrally; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of questions to the Department that were not answered due to disproportionate cost or because the information was not held centrally over the last five years was 88.

  The number of such questions that could now be answered due to increased computerisation and other changes to operational systems could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the United Kingdom Government are giving towards de-mining activity in Somaliland; and where de-mining activity is currently taking place in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not funding de-mining work currently. We provided almost £700,000 to support
  529
  work in north-west Somalia from November 1991 to May 1993. We understand UNOSOM II is supporting 14 local mine clearance schemes and plans to expand them and to open a de-mining training school in Mogadishu.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which dam and large-scale power projects approved for ATP assistance in the last five years there has not been a full environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All ODA projects, including ATP projects, are subject to environmental assessment according to the guidelines and procedures described in our Manual of Environmental Appraisal, first issued in 1989, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. If on initial screening the proposed development registers any significant environmental impacts then we would take further steps to ensure a more detailed environmental appraisal, or environmental impact assessment, is carried out.

  The following two projects were not subject to more detailed environmental appraisal: gas turbines, Philippines; scattered diesels, Indonesia. Both projects were approved before the ODA guidelines on environmental appraisal came into being.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many refugees are estimated to be fleeing Rwanda; and what response is being made by the international community.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated, as of 15 April 1994, that some 26,000 people had fled Rwanda, 12,000 of whom were Burundi refugees who had sought refuge in Rwanda; 9,000 Rwandese refugees are reported to have fled to Zaire. The situation, however, is in a state of flux. Britain has so far committed some £820,000 in humanitarian aid as our share of the international response. Details of responses by other donor countries are not yet available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 29, concerning the powers of Her Majesty's Government within the Council of Ministers of the European Community, which articles listed refer to (a) obligatory duties or action as required by the treaties and (b) optional actions.

  The Prime Minister
  Whether the treaty requires the Council to act, or gives it a discretion whether or not to act, specific proposals for action made under the articles listed in my previous answer require the unanimous agreement of the Council.

  Friendly Countries
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 908, regarding friendly countries, which countries and Governments are presently regarded as sharing the United Kingdom's objectives.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 31 March at column 908.

  Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current members of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

  The Prime Minister
  The members of the Advisory Committee on usiness Appointments are:

  The right hon. the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow QC—Chairman

  The Lord Bridges GCMG

  Sir John Blelloch KCB

  Sir Trevor Holdsworth

  Sir Charles Huxtable KCB CBE

  Sir Robin Ibbs KBE

  The right hon. Peter Shore MP

  The right hon. the Lord Thomson of Monifieth KT

  I have recently appointed the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and Sir John Blelloch, following the retirement at the end of their appointments of Lord Merlyn-Rees and Sir Patrick Nairne.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made to issue guidelines in relation to the liaison between local authorities and local water authorities after local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. It is a matter for a local authority and a local water company what links are established between them, provided that they comply with statute. That applies whether local government structure is reorganised in their area or not.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received on local government reforms.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend receives a number of representations from time to time relating to the reform of local government in England. Local government in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Rio Earth Summit
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make further announcements about the process of taking forward the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Rio earth summit.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government published in January this year a comprehensive strategy on sustainable development and national plans on climate change, biodiversity, and
  531
  forests. We are taking a full part in international action to follow up the earth summit, including preparations for the next meeting in May of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to review private rented housing.

  Sir George Young
  The private rented sector has already expanded considerably since deregulation in 1989. We have in hand a number of other initiatives to ensure that this revival continues.

  Out-of-town Shopping Developments
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his policy on out-of-town shopping developments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received a number. The majority have been supportive of our policy of encouraging shopping development in or next to existing town centres and concentrations of people.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to alter the planning regulations to give additional protection to listed buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Provisions in schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 considerably strengthened the regime for enforcing listed building control. We will consider any additional provisions that my hon. Friend wishes to propose.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the law relating to the right to buy.

  Sir George Young
  I have no plans for a major review. I am, however, considering one or two minor clarifying amendments for introduction when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Markets
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the licensing of markets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ministers receive representations on the licensing of markets from time to time.

  Local Authority Capital Investment
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for changing the methods of financing capital investment by local authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  The system established by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 fosters an appropriate pattern of investment while
  maintaining control of public expenditure.

  Coal Mines (Water Pollution)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority about the impact on watercourses of closed coal mines.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department maintains regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about this and other issues.

  Local Government (Royal Commission)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will appoint a Royal Commission on local government.

  Mr. Curry
  No. My right hon. Friend sees no reason for the appointment of such a commission.

  Sewage Sludge Dumping (North Sea)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the need for a derogation from the European Union requirement to end North sea sewage sludge dumping.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive does not provide for a derogation from the requirement to ban dumping of sewage sludge at sea by the end of 1998.

  Council Tax
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the average council tax is for a band D property.

  Mr. Baldry
  The average headline council tax for a band D property for English authorities, based on information returned to my Department, is £580. This represents an increase of 2.2 per cent. on the 1993–94 average which was £568. Most households pay band C or less. The comparable band C figure for 1994–95 is £516.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the differences in council tax levels between local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The average headline council tax (band C, two adults) ranges from £218 set by Westminster to £770 set by Liverpool. The average headline council tax (band C, two adults) for Conservative-controlled authorities is £429 while the average for Labour-controlled authorities is £560.

  Local Authority Rents
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the average level of rent set by each local authority for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  The information so far available to my Department from local authorities' returns has been placed in the Library. It represents returns from 329 of the 366 housing authorities in England. My Department's estimate of the average council rent for 1994-95 is £35.70, an increase of £2.00 a week on 1993–94.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the five London boroughs
  533
  with the highest average council house rents, and the five lowest; and if he will give the political control of each of those councils.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities report information on average rents on housing revenue account claim forms. The London boroughs with the five highest and five lowest average rents for 1994–95, based on the latest available information, are as follows:

  Average weekly rent 1994–95 (£)

  Political control

  Redbridge

  63·75

  Conservative

  Harrow

  62·97

  Conservative

  Westminster

  61·43

  Conservative

  Kensington and Chelsea

  60·28

  Conservative

  Kingston upon Thames

  60·27

  No overall control

  Hounslow

  39·97

  Labour

  Newham

  39·88

  Labour

  Tower Hamlets

  37·71

  Liberal Democrat

  Havering

  36·91

  No overall control

  Barking

  33·15

  Labour

  Rent levels reflect a number of factors, including the arrangements for setting guideline rents for HRA subsidy purposes. These arrangements are related to capital values, which generally lead to higher rent levels in areas where the average value of council dwellings are higher.

  London (Quality of Life)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he made of the responses to his London questionnaire on the changes in the quality of life for Londoners over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our analysis of the responses did not reveal any comments on changes in the quality of life for Londoners over the past 10 years.

  Local Government Powers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to devolve power from central to local government.

  Mr. Curry
  The distribution of power between central and local government is guided by the principle of subsidiarity, which requires responsibility to be delegated to the level which is most consistent with competence, practicality and cost-effectiveness.

  Energy Conservation Bill
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received concerning the Energy Conservation Bill; what proportion are in favour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received some 500 letters in support of the Energy Conservation Bill.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the implementation of planning policy guidance notes 6 and 13.

  Mr. Gummer
  These planning policy guidance notes play a key role in our sustainable development strategy by 534
  helping to maximise the potential of existing centres, and encouraging development in locations where there can be a choice of means of access—and which can help to reduce the need to travel. It is for local authorities to reflect this approach in their plans and planning decisions in the first instance. The principles will also apply to decisions on planning appeal and call-in.

  Local Government Reorganisation (Cleveland)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government reorganisation in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received more than 300 representations about local government reorganisation in Cleveland since the Local Government Commission issued its final report last November. When we lay an implementation order for Cleveland we shall place a summary of these in the Library. Individual representations will be made available if requested unless the writers intended their views to be treated in confidence.

  Charles House
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment of Charles house, London W14.

  Sir George Young
  This property, with an area of 33,000 sq. metres, is held on a lease expiring in June 2010 at an historically low rent. The refurbishment is being undertaken jointly by Property Holdings and Inland Revenue (the major occupier) at a total cost of £3.7 million, inclusive of fees and VAT. It will upgrade the accommodation to provide good value central London offices and at the same time enable the surrender of other premises showing an estimated annual saving of £4.3 million.

  London Consultation Paper
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the responses to the consultation paper on "London: Making the Best Better", raised topics on which responses were not specifically invited; and if he will list each such topic, indicating the level of support from the public which it attracted.

  Sir George Young
  Question 1 of the questionnaire in "London: Making the Best Better" invited respondents to select aspects of London they appreciate from a list of 62 topics, with space to write in other aspects if they wished. All the other questions were open-ended and gave respondents free rein to raise the issues which concerned them about London. Distinctions between topics on which views were or were not specifically invited did not, therefore, arise and all the views expressed were taken into account in the analysis.

  Housing Renovation Grants
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase or extend the availability of housing renovation grants.

  Sir George Young
  We will announce our conclusions on the future of private sector renewal programmes following last year's consultation exercise in due course.

  Public Sector Housing Development
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land he expects to be used for public housing for(a) council and (b) housing association development during the current year; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  New house building by local authorities is now negligible. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.

  Forecasts of the amount of land expected to be used for the provision of social housing, and the cost to public funds of the land, are not collected by the Housing Corporation or the Department. Housing association bids for funds from the Housing Corporation's approved development programme take into account the total cost of a scheme including any requirement to purchase land but do not identify the cost of the land separately.

  Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent on consultants' fees by each urban development corporation since the corporations' inception.

  Mr. Baldry
  Urban development corporations contract our project management, legal, planning, architectural and engineering design and a range of other services to private sector consultants. In addition consultants are commissioned to produce reports, although this represents only a small proportion of the total expenditure. Expenditure from inception to 31 March 1994 on consultants' fees is as follows:

  Urban development corporation

  £ million

  Birmingham heartlands

  0·54

  Black country

  27·68

  Bristol

  6·40

  Central Manchester

  6·00

  Leeds

  4·93

  London docklands

  152·70

  Merseyside

  24·40

  Plymouth

  0·58

  Sheffield

  11·14

  Teesside

  226·92

  Trafford Park

  22·03

  Tyne and Wear

  25·49

  1 Figures from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1994—project consultancies only. Figures from inception to 31 March 1990 not available.

  2 Figures up to 31 March 1993.

  Coalfield Areas Fund
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures on the distribution of the coalfield areas fund and on the share of the fund that is being made available in relation to the closure of Littleton colliery in south Staffordshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  The full £5 million available under the Coalfield Areas Fund was allocated last year, in response to bids from local authorities, as follows:

  DOE Region and Authority

  Bids approved (£)

  Merseyside

  St. Helens MBC (Parkside/Sutton Manor)

  150,000

  North West

  536

  DOE Region and Authority

  Bids approved (£)

  Wigan MBC (Parkside)

  120,000

  North

  Easington DC (Vane Tempest/Easington)

  164,000

  Durham Co.C (Vane Tempest/Easington)

  86,000

  West Midlands

  Stoke-on-Trent Ci C (Trentham)

  560,400

  Staffordshire Co. C (Trentham)

  266,000

  East Midlands

  Ashfield DC (Silverhill)

  336,108

  Rushcliffe BC (Cotgrave)

  293,232

  Nottinghamshire Co. C (Coalfield area/Cotgrave/Bevercotes/Clipstone)

  384,500

  Bolsover DC (Bolsover/Shirebrook)

  544,393

  Newark and Sherwood DC (Clipstone)

  72,756

  Chesterfield BC (Bolsover)

  214,000

  Bassetlaw BC (Bevercotes)

  193,800

  Mansfield DC (Coalfield area/Clipstone/Shirebrook)

  359,800

  Derbyshire Co. C (Coalfield Area)

  50,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Doncaster MBC (Rossington/Markham Main)

  648,150

  Wakefield MDC (Sharlston)

  288,000

  Rotherham MBC (Maltby)

  291,000

  Total

  5,022,639

  Although communities affected by the closure of Littleton colliery have not been assisted by the Coalfield Areas Fund, they will benefit from other elements of the Government's £200 million package of assistance announced last year by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Urban Waste Water Directive (Torbay)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the kinds of tidal movements in Torbay; and if he will categorise the bay as less sensitive under the urban waste water directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 18 April at column 361

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority, together with an indication of political control,(a) the budget submitted for 1994–95, (b) the spending at standard spending assessment, (c) the percentage over standard spending assessment which the budget represents, (d) the percentage over the 1993–94 budget which the 1994–95 budget represents, (e) the provisional cap and (f) the approved cap.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he takes of the impact of fixed spending on capital financing costs in his policies on the capping of local authority expenditure.

  Mr. Baldry
  Provision for capital financing costs is included within authorities' standard spending assessments. In determining his principles for capping my right hon. Friend has regard to all relevant considerations. The cap proposed for any authority designated in accordance with those principles takes account of all the available information on its circumstances.
  537
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 November,Official Report, columns 43–44, in what way his final proposals on capital financing standard spending assessments took into account responses to the consultation on his original proposals.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State considered carefully all the representations which we received during the consultation period, including those relating to the capital financing element, and any other relevant information before taking his final decisions on the 1994–95 revenue support grant settlement.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will present to the European Commission the Government's proposals for directing future European structural funds assistance towards regions in England seriously affected by industrial decline; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have arranged for the regional conversion plans for the nine regions in England designated by the Commission for assistance under structural funds objective 2 to be presented to the European Commission today. Funding under objective 2 contributes towards the development of regions (including employment areas and urban communities) seriously affected by industrial decline. The plans cover the period 1994–96, for which £1,195 million has been allocated to England.

  The nine regions, with 1994–96 allocations, are North East England, £239 million; West Cumbria and Furness, £19 million; Yorkshire and Humberside, £243 million; East Midlands, £62 million; West Midlands, £287 million; Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire, £255 million; East London and Lee Valley, £57 million; Thanet, £11 million; and Plymouth, £22 million.

  The plans have been lodged in time to ensure that the eligible date for expenditure on objective 2 programmes is 1 January 1994. Under the Structural Funds Regulations, the Commission is required to reach a decision on the plans within six months of receipt.

  Rent Officers (Guidelines)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the guidelines issued to the rent officers to assist them in the setting of rent levels.

  Sir George Young
  When setting fair rents, rent officers follow the provisions of section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. When considering the reasonableness of market rents for housing benefit purposes, they follow the provisions of the Rent Officer (Additional Functions) Order 1990 (SI 428) as amended. The Secretary of State has no powers to issue guidelines about setting rents to rent officers, and has therefore not done so.

  The Education Trust of the Institute of Rent Officers has established a working party to examine issues surrounding the determination of fair rents, and its report will be published during May.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the recommendations of the construction deregulation task 538
  force in relation to the contracting-out of the processing or planning applications and the introduction of a twin-tracking approach to technical assessment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The way in which planning authorities manage planning applications is best left to their discretion in the light of local circumstances. Planning authorities are already free to put the preliminary functions out to tender if they wish. But they must satisfy themselves that this would not compromise their statutory responsibilities, undermine the need to reach decisions on the basis of objective evidence or lead to conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Sproat
  In 1993, 146 appointments were made to the bodies for which the Department of National Heritage is responsible. Of these, two appointments were of Asian people and two of black people, representing 1.37 per cent. in each case or a total of 2.7 per cent.

  It would not be appropriate to identify individual appointees in the way requested.

  All-seater Stadiums
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all recent statements made by Ministers in his Department in respect of alteration of the policy of all-seater stadiums for premier league and first division football clubs.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 15 April 1994]: There have been none. The all-seater policy remains unchanged.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Rwanda with particular reference to international action to end the violence.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The priority for the moment is to establish a cease-fire and create conditions in which the Arusha peace process and humanitarian relief efforts can be relaunched. The United Nations, countries of the region and the Organisation for African Unity are all playing a role in this.

  European Treaties
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the differences in content, format, text, or other respect between the treaty on European Union published as Cm. 1934 in May 1992, and the treaty published as Cm. 2485 in March 1994; and when he expects to present to Parliament, in a similar fashion, the consolidated and amended treaties establishing the European Economic Community, Coal and Steel Community, Atomic Energy Community and European Union together with their protocols and declarations.
  539
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Cm. 1934 is the text of the treaty on European union, as signed at Maastricht, and presented to Parliament in may 1992 as part of the European Communities series. Cm. 2485 contains the same text, but was published in the treaty series in March 1994, following the treaty's entry into force, in accordance with normal practice. It includes the date of the treaty's entry into force and the dates of ratification by the 12 member states. The consolidated text of the treaty establishing the EC, as amended by the treaty on European union, has already been published by the office for official publications of the European Communities. It is available in the Library of the House and through HMSO. An accompanying volume containing the consolidated texts of the ECSC and EURATOM treaties will be published shortly.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attitude the Russian Government are taking at the United Nations on the continuation of the sanctions against Serbia; and what assessment he has made of developments in this attitude.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been no recent discussions of sanctions in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Government have not proposed revoking any of the Security Council resolutions which impose sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had and with whom on the present talks taking place on the confidence-building negotiations on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since the start of this year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the United Nations Secretary-General's package of confidence-building measures for Cyprus with the Turkish Prime Minister, the Turkish, Greek and Cypriot Foreign Ministers, the United Nations Secretary-General and his Special Representative on Cyprus, the United States Secretary of State and with his European colleagues. Most recently I discussed Cyprus with the Cypriot Foreign Minister at the EC/Cyprus Association Council held in Luxembourg on 18 April.

  We believe that the package offers substantial benefits to both communities. We welcome President Clerides' acceptance of the United Nations plan for its implementation and note that the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, continues to have objections. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Turkish Prime Minister on 6 April urging her to encourage Mr. Denktash to adopt a more constructive approach to the negotiations.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed 540
  the issue of Kashmir with the Prime Minister of Pakistan at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Limassol on 22 October 1993. We have continued to be in regular communication with the Government of Pakistan on the issue.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To the best of our knowledge, only one private security company has been employed by the FCO in this country in the past 10 years. Southern Security Guards Ltd. were employed between October 1992 and April 1993 to guard Wiston house conference centre. Two to four guards are employed at a cost of £2,998.52.

  No central record is kept of security companies employed by our overseas posts.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international sanctions are applied to Burma; and what further action is being considered by Her Majesty's Government and international bodies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The European Union suspended all non-humanitarian aid to Burma in 1988. In 1991, the EU imposed an arms embargo on Burma, and in 1992 it severed remaining defence links. We and our European partners continue to encourage like-minded countries to do the same.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action was taken on Burma by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its recent meeting in Geneva; and what was the response of the Burmese Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The 1994 session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva adopted a consensus resolution strongly criticising the human rights situation in Burma. The Burmese argued that the terms of the resolution were an unacceptable intrusion into Burma's domestic juridiction.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to increase the resources available to the United Nations centre for human rights in Geneva.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Last year the United Nations Secretary General proposed a large increase in funding for the United Nations human rights programme in 1994–1995. The United Nations General Assembly in 1993 recognised the need for further additional resources to fund the new High Commissioner for Human Rights. We welcomed both steps, and hope that they will be confirmed in the next few weeks. We will continue to support the efforts of the Secretary General to increase the resources available to the centre, if necessary through redeployment from areas of lesser priority.

  Immigration Applications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on an application made by Mr. Gulnamaz, ref: CON/3798, to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad; when the result of a DNA test required to consider the application by Mr. Gulnamaz was received by the post; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Gulnamaz Din's most recent application for a British passport was refused and his fee refunded on 30 March 1993.

  The British High Commission in Islamabad understands that Mr. Gulnamaz has opted for DNA testing and has an appointment to give a blood sample on 15 May. In the meantime, he will need to reapply for a passport. This can then be considered in the light of the test results. As explained in my letter of 7 May 1993, however, DNA testing cannot establish that Mr. Gulnamaz's claimed parents were married at the time of his birth. Mr. Gulnamaz's elegibility for British nationality is dependent on his legitimate descent from his claimed father.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when decisions are to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad on the applications, ref: IMM/4343, of Sabreen Jan, date of birth 13 November 1990, Amina Bibi, date of birth 1 April 1988 and Muchtaq Ahmed date of birth 15 December 1986 to enter the United Kingdom; when these children took DNA tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  DNA test results in respect of Sabreen Jan, Amina Bibi and Mushtaq Ali were received by the British High Commission in Islamabad on 16 July 1993. It was then necessary for the High Commission to ask the children's father, Mohammed Ishaq, for information about his domicile in order to ascertain whether the children had a claim to British nationality by descent from him.

  He completed the domicile questionnaire on 17 January 1994 and this was then sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for consideration. Although clarification of some points is needed, sufficient information is available for the High Commission to issue restricted-validity passports to the children. This will enable them to travel while the remaining details are resolved.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application made by Mukhtaj Bibi, who was born on 1 November 1972, ref: IMM 67849, to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  In the absence of any information about this case, I have asked the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to let the hon. Member have a substantive reply in due course.

  Intelligence Services
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the criteria will be for authorising publications by former members of the security and intelligence agencies, following the passage of the Intelligence Services Bill[Lords].
  542
  Mr. Hurd
  Former employees of the security and intelligence agencies who wish to publish books or articles, give interviews to the media or provide information for other writers or historians are bound by a duty of confidence to the Crown and are subject to section 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. These obligations are made clear to people when they take up employment with the agencies and when they leave. No former member of the agencies need be in any doubt about his obligations. The same arrangements would apply to a person notified under section 1(1)(b) of the OSA with respect to the period while the notification is or was in force. On 21 December 1988 at column 538 my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), then Minister of State, Home Office, set out the procedures for authorising disclosures under section 1(1) of what is now the Official Secrets Act 1989. He made it clear that such authorisation would be given only in exceptional circumstances.

  The need to protect sensitive information is fully recognised in the Intelligence Services Bill, as it is in the Security Service Act 1989. The Bill defines strictly the circumstances under which information may properly be disclosed by the intelligence services including disclosure of records in accordance with the Public Records Act 1958 and 1967, which of course applies only to matters over 30 years old.

  Authorisation for publication or other disclosure will accordingly be especially rare and exceptional with regard to events which happened less than 30 years ago. In any case where a former member of the security and intelligence agencies or a person notified under section 1 (1) (b) as described above wishes to publish or otherwise disclose material relating to his official duties, whether older than 30 years or not, he will need to apply to his former employer for authority to disclose. But there may, in the case of older material, be more likelihood that there will be no objection to disclosure. Any applications made in good faith would be looked at on their individual merits, and would still be judged on whether disclosure of any particular piece of information would jeopardise national security, whether directly or indirectly. If not, the service would be able so to inform the prospective author and give him authority to make the disclosure, so that it would not be contrary to section 1 (1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 nor in breach of his civil duty of confidence. Authorisation would imply only that there were no concerns about national security. It would not imply that the Crown had endorsed the publication or confirmed the accuracy of its contents. The Crown would reserve the right not to give authorisation in cases where an officer had committed breaches of the criminal law or his civil obligations.

HEALTH

  NHS Reforms (London)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the reasons for the publication of the leaflet on "NHS Changes in London"; what was the total cost of publication; and from whom legal advice was sought before publishing it;

  (2) what means of assessment she used when drafting the leaflet "NHS Changes in London" of the questions which needed to be covered.
  543
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The leaflet was produced to address and answer key questions about health services in London. It was cleared by officials in the normal way. The estimated cost of producing and distributing the leaflet is £150,000.

  Amyl Nitrites
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to declare the sale of those sex-enhancing drugs which alter physiological functioning, with particular reference to nitrites, illegal under the Medicines Acts; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what licensing, testing and quality controls and other regulations are applied to the manufacture and sale of the sex-enhancing drugs Rock Hard, Kix, Rush, Ram, Thunderbolt and other nitrites which are most commonly used to facilitate homosexual practices; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency regulates human medicines in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Medicines Acts of 1968 and 1971 and Pharmaceutical Directives of the European Community. No alkyl nitrite is licensed as a medicinal product, and in consequence no product containing nitrite is currently subject to the statutory controls on the manufacture and supply of medicinal products.

  Alkyl nitrites are not being promoted for sale explicitly as sexual stimulants. If they were, they would have to be licensed under the Medicines Act 1968, which defines interference with a physiological function as a medicinal purpose. The MCA will investigate all reports of unlicensed medicines, their advertising, labelling and sales, and take the appropriate enforcement action.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those trusts, by region, that have failed to(a) achieve a capital return of 6 per cent. or more, (b) break even and (c) operate within external financing limits in each year since their inception.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be placed in the Library. Information for 1993–94 will not be available until the annual accounts of trusts are audited.

  The majority of trusts listed had technical issues which affected their ability to meet their financial duties. This does not imply any failure in financial control. In a number of cases the difference between actual financial performance and statutory target is deemed to be immaterial.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average working hours of junior doctors this year(a) nationally and (b) in Coventry and the west midlands; and what the figures were for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of hours worked by junior doctors is not available centrally. Figures for the average contracted hours of junior doctors and dentists are shown in the table. The figures for September 1993 are not yet available.544

  Mean contracted hours of junior doctors in England, West Midlands and Coventry as at 30 September 1991 and 1992

  1991

  1992

  England

  80

  75

  West Midlands

  84

  76

  Coventry

  82

  76

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for reducing the working hours of junior doctors; and what discussions she has had with the British Medical Association regarding this matter.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our targets for reducing junior doctors' hours are set out in the new deal guidance, copies of which are available in the Library. Regional office task forces support and monitor implementation of the new deal. They report regularly to a ministerial group. The medical profession is fully represented on that group.

  The new deal is a joint initiative between the United Kingdom health departments, the medical profession and the national health service and was based on an agreement with representatives of consultants, junior doctors, the medical royal colleges and national health service management.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from organisations or members of the public regarding the working hours of junior doctors; and if she will name the organisations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There has been a great deal of interest, from organisations and members of the public, in the progress made to reduce junior doctors' hours since the launch of the new deal in 1991.

  Listing all those making representations would involve disproportionate cost.

  Health Information
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of running the NHS changes in London health information service telephone line.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The line is operated by the already established health information services in the London area; no additional costs have been incurred.

  Nurses (Smoking)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to help nurses who smoke to give up smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for all national health service authorities and provider units to pursue in accordance with the guidance, HSG(92)41, published in October 1992 on the introduction of smoking policies in the NHS. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Immunisation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the relative cost of delivering immunisation by prefilled syringe and the traditional method of vial, syringe and needle.
  545
  Mr. Sackville
  Requests for the provision of prefilled syringe presentations are being carefully monitored. At present, demand is only a small proportion of the totality in respect of vaccine supplied for the childhood immunisation programme. New contracts for most centrally purchased vaccines are due from 1 October 1994. The relative costs will be considered at the adjudication stage of the contracting procedures.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which health authorities she has written requesting that they restart the Bacille-Calmette-Guérin immunisation programme.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not written to any health authorities requesting that they restart the schools Bacille-Calmette-Guérin immunisation programme. The importance of the programme has been drawn to the attention of all regional health authorities through the regional review process; regions have been asked to consider carefully whether their arrangements to protect against tuberculosis are adequate. We are aware that some districts which have suspended their programme are reconsidering their policies.

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 724, when she plans to implement recommendation 14 of HC(90)9 on proceedings against doctors, to introduce arrangements for monitoring the new procedure; when the HC(90)9 procedure is to be reviewed and by whom; how public expenditure arising from the use of this procedure is monitored; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Employing authorities were asked to monitor the procedures in HC(90)9 in order to inform a review which commenced in April 1993. This review was carried out by a joint working party chaired by Dr. Graham Winyard, medical director of the national health service executive. The joint working party contained representatives of the medical profession, the Health Departments and national health service management. Information on the expenditure arising from the use of these procedures is not available centrally.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 724, what plans she has to set up systems for collecting information on disciplinary action on hospital doctors; and whether trusts have specific budgets to meet the legal costs when taking disciplinary proceedings against a doctor under the procedure HC(90)9.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to collect such information. Legal costs would be an expenditure item which trusts would recover in prices through the contracting system.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 724, how many doctors have been dismissed since 1990 on grounds of personal misconduct; and what was the total number of doctors dismissed from national health service posts since 1990;

  (2) what changes there have been in the number of doctors (a) suspended, (b) subject to disciplinary hearing and (c) dismissed since 1990.
  546
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Decisions on disciplinary action for hospital doctors and dentists rests with the employing authority or trust. This includes whether to suspend or dismiss a practitioner.

  Pacemaker Leads
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Meditronic was first licensed to sell pacemaker leads in the United Kingdom; and which leads were licensed, by date.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no requirement for the licensing of medical devices intended for sale within the United Kingdom, including pacemaker leads.

  The Department of Health has operated a voluntary registration scheme for manufacturers of medical devices since 1981; Meditronic was first registered on 10 October 1983.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients have been waiting(a) six months or more and (b) one year or more for in-patient operations in each London health authority;

  (2) what is the latest number of patients awaiting (a) in-patient and (b) day-case treatment in each London district health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment by district health authority and trust is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". This is published twice yearly and copies are available in the Library.

  Medico-legal Services (Charges)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average hourly fee charged by doctors acting in(a) a professional and (b) an expert capacity for preparing medico-legal reports to be presented in court;

  (2) what is the average half-day fee paid to (a) professional medical witnesses and (b) expert medical witnesses for attendance at court.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fees are set by individual negotiation on each case and data are not available centrally.

  Limb Defects
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys national analysis of the geographical pattern of limb reduction defects will be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has completed its analysis of the geographical pattern of limb reduction defects in England and Wales. It has concluded that there is no difference in prevalence in these malformations between coastal and non-coastal areas. The full text of the analysis will be placed in the Library and is being published in this week's edition of The Lancet.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year from 1990 the expenditure on mobile phones by(a) region, (b) district health authority and (c) trust in England.
  547
  Mr. Sackville
  Health authority and national health service trust financial returns do not identify expenditure for mobile telephones separately from other telecommunications expenditure.

  Corporate Image Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each new regional health authority, the expenditure on a new corporate image in terms of(a) stationery, (b) publications, (c) signage, (d) livery, (e) logo design and (f) in total.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 31 March at columns 1049-50. The new corporate identity which has been developed for the National Health Service Executive is a single common design for use by the headquarters and regional offices of the NHS Executive, and also by regional health authorities.

  Performance Tables
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the allocated budget for the new NHS performance tables; and if she will indicate the value of the contract awarded to Phoenix Interface Technology Ltd.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The budget for the first set of national health service performance tables is £300,000. This includes the cost of the contract for the initial data collection exercise which was awarded to Siemens-Nixdorf Information Systems Limited who subcontracted to Phoenix Interface Technology Ltd. The value of the contract was £16,423 plus value added tax. The initial non-recurring set-up costs have yet to be finalised.

  Leaflets, London
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which constituencies the leaflet, "NHS Changes in London—answers to the Questions You've Been Asking", has been delivered; and what criteria were used in deciding on these constituencies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The leaflet distribution was targeted at households within the area bounded by the M25. Constituency boundaries were not taken into account in determining distribution.

  "Bringing Up Children"
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her Department's proposed booklet, "Bringing Up Children"; what distribution is intended; at what expense; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  The updated parents charter will be distributed to every household in England at an estimated cost of £630,000. It will not be a guide for parents on bringing up children; rather it will explain how parents' rights have been strengthened, and choice extended, since the publication of the first parents charter in 1991.

DEFENCE

  Belize
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now reconsider the decision to withdraw the British garrison from Belize.

  Mr. Hanley
  We see no reason to change our plans for the evolution of the British military presence in Belize as announced on 13 May 1993. From 1 October 1994 we will continue to have a presence in Belize, in the form of the British Army training support unit Belize which will provide jungle training to British military units.

  Germ Warfare
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from his(a) Russian and (b) American counterparts regarding the current status of the research and development capability of Russia's germ warfare programme.

  Mr. Hanley
  The terms of the 1992 Russia—United States—United Kingdom trilateral agreement designed to address concerns about Russian non-compliance with the 1972 biological and toxin weapons convention, only allows for information to be exchanged on a confidential basis. It is not therefore possible to reveal details of information gained through this process.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident that occurred at Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston on 24 March 1994, and place in the Library a copy of the unclassified version of the local board of inquiry report into that incident when it is completed.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 19 April at column 501. Arrangements will be made for a copy of an unclassified version of the board of inquiry report to be placed in the Library in due course.

  RAF Carlisle
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 14 January to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood),Official Report, column 350, and of 21 February to the hon. Member for East Lothian, Official Report, column 66, how much has been spent on refurbishment at RAF Carlisle over the past (a) five and (b) 10 years; and if he will provide a breakdown of the spending on each element of the programmes of refurbishment and upgrading carried out in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the advisory committee on conscientious objectors.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  549

  John W. Rogers QC (Chairman)

  Hon. Mr. Justice Latham (Vice Chairman)

  A. D. Collins QC (Deputy Vice Chairman)

  M. M. Brooke

  Professor J. Cheetham

  B. J. S. Edmond

  Mrs. J. A. Kirkpatrick

  R. Haze11

  D. J. Burt

  Mrs. R. E. Nugee JP

  "Statement on the Defence Estimates"
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will be publishing the 1994 "Statement on the Defence Estimates"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what publicity work will be carried out relating to the publication of the 1994 "Statement on the Defence Estimates"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" will be published and laid in the House on Tuesday 26 April. This will be followed by a press briefing and publication of a press notice.

EDUCATION

  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools in each London borough.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary, secondary and special schools in the London boroughs, January 1993

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Corporation of London

  15·2

  —

  —

  Camden

  20·8

  15·6

  3·9

  Greenwich

  20·4

  16·7

  6·4

  Hackney

  19·9

  14·6

  5·7

  Hammersmith

  19·8

  15·1

  5·4

  Islington

  19·8

  15·0

  4·9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17·6

  13·3

  4·0

  Lambeth

  19·4

  15·5

  4·7

  Lewisham

  21·1

  16·5

  5·6

  Southwark

  21·6

  16·9

  4·8

  Tower Hamlets

  17·8

  14·0

  5·4

  Wandsworth

  19·9

  14·7

  5·4

  Westminster

  17·2

  14·5

  4·9

  Barking

  22·1

  17·0

  5·1

  Barnet

  21·1

  15·0

  5·1

  Bexley

  23·4

  16·7

  6·9

  Brent

  21·6

  15·3

  4·8

  Bromley

  23·3

  16·3

  5·9

  Croydon

  21·5

  16·0

  5·4

  Ealing

  20·7

  15·3

  5·2

  Enfield

  21·3

  16·3

  5·5

  Haringey

  20·8

  14·5

  4·8

  Harrow

  21·3

  15·7

  5·7

  Havering

  22·8

  16·4

  6·0

  Hillingdon

  22·0

  15·8

  7·5

  Hounslow

  20·5

  16·4

  5·9

  Kingston upon Thames

  22·5

  15·8

  6·2

  Merton

  19·6

  15·5

  5·2

  Newham

  24·1

  16·6

  4·5

  Redbridge

  23·0

  17·2

  4·7

  Richmond upon Thames

  20·3

  16·5

  5·4

  Sutton

  23·4

  16·8

  6·7

  Waltham Forest

  22·2

  15·2

  3·6

  Student Grants
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the principal conclusions of the Gulbenkian Foundation survey into discretionary grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on 13 April at column 196.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place a copy of the report of the Gulbenkian Foundation on discretionary grants in the Library.

  Mr. Boswell
  A copy of the report is already available in the Library, placed there on publication by the Calouste Gulbenkian and Sir John Cass's Foundations.

  Supply Teachers
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for how many days supply teachers have been employed since April 1993 in(a) England and (b) each London borough.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The detail requested is not available. An annual survey of teachers employed in the maintained sector gives a snapshot view of occasional supply teachers employed for the whole day in schools on the survey date. There were 12,446 such teachers in service on 21 January 1993 in England. Reliable figures at local education authority level are not available.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many supply teachers are registered with each local education authority in London.

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

  Teachers (Illness)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what analysis he has done of the numbers of teaching days lost due to stress-related illnesses since April 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not collect information on teacher absence due to illness.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 522, what requests he received to meet Labour Members representing London constituencies to discuss problems facing their constituents; what responses he gave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  I have received the following requests1

  Member of Parliament

  Date

  Response

  Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)

  1 August 1993

  Request accepted

  Michael Neubert (Romford)

  5 October 1993

  Request accepted

  Mike Gapes (Ilford South)

  24 February 1994

  Request declined

  Notes:

  The details cover all requests for meetings received by the Secretary of

  551
  State or one of the Ministers in the Department since 1 March 1993, the time period for which the hon. Member asked his earlier question concerning meetings with hon. Members representing constituencies in London.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 522, which hon. Members representing London constituencies he or Ministers in his Department have met since April 1992.

  Mr. Patten
  The details requested are as follows:

  Secretary of State

  Hugh Dykes MP (Harrow, East)—4 March 1993

  The right hon. Nicholas Scott MP (Chelsea)—20 December 1993

  Minister of State—The Baroness Blatch

  John Marshall (Hendon, South)—13 January 1994

  Richard Tracey (Surbiton)—28 February 1994

  Mr. Boswell

  None

  Mr. Forth

  Hartley Booth (Finchley)—22 July 1993

  Nigel Spearing (Newham)—5 October 1992

  Matthew Carrington (Fulham)—7 January 1993

  Tim Eggar (Enfield)—10 February 1993

  Michael Neubert (Romford)—26 October 1993

  John Bowis (Battersea)—17 January 1994

  Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)—12 April 1994

  Mr. Squire

  Richard Tracey (Surbiton)—12 October 1993

  Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)—2 December 1993

  Piers Merchant (Beckenham)—15 March 1994

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 522, how many Labour Members nationally he, or Ministers in his Department, have met in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Patten
  The details requested are as follows:

  Secretary of State

  None.

  Minister of State—The Baroness Blatch

  None.

  Mr. Boswell

  None.

  Mr. Forth

  Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)—13 July 1994

  Wyn Griffiths (Bridgend)—27 July 1993

  Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)—12 April 1994

  Greg Pope (Hyndburn) and Peter Pike (Burnley)—23 February 1994 (this was part of an all-Party delegation from Lancashire county council)

  Mr. Squire

  None.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many requests he has received from the hon. Member for Ilford, South for a meeting to discuss the educational problems and overcrowding in the London borough of Redbridge; on what dates he received the letters; and what was the response.

  Mr. Patten
  I have received one request from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for a meeting. This was received on 24 February 1994. This request was declined by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) as Minister 552
  responsible for school organisation issues on my behalf. He advised the hon. Member that I have no powers of intervention in the matter.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment, Lewisham
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Lewisham, East have been unemployed for more than two years; what percentage of the unemployed in Lewisham, East this represents; how many are women; and how many are aged under 25 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Claimant unemployment in Lewisham, East—January 1994

  Number

  Claimants unemployed for over 2 years:

  11,319

  Of which:

  Women

  215

  Under 25's

  190

  125 per cent. of all unemployed in the area.

  Note: Claimant unemployment statistics by age and duration are available on the unadjusted basis from the NOMIS database in the Library for the months of January, April, July and October.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what current United Kingdom legislation makes provision against discrimination on grounds of age in employment matters; how many United Kingdom employees have(a) won and (b) lost an appeal against unfair dismissal on the grounds of age discrimination; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no United Kingdom legislation which makes provision against discrimination on grounds of age in employment. The Government firmly believe that the way forward is through education and persuasion.

  The consideration of whether a dismissal is unfair may include consideration of how age has been taken into account in the decision to dismiss, but this depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Industrial tribunals' central office does not keep records of the factors involved in such cases and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ionising Radiation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evaluation he has made of the proposals made by Mr. Paul Lannoye MEP in his report A3-0147/94 on the amended proposal for a council directive laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (COM(93)0349-C3-0282/93, of 17 March.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None; the proposals are being made to a Committee of the European Parliament.

  JHP Training
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much public money has been paid to JHP Training by training and enterprise councils in each of the last five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Contracts between training and enterprise councils and their training providers are matters for local negotiation and the details are commercially confidential.

  Occupational injuries1 reported to enforcing authorities, 1983 to 1992–93p

  Mines Inspectorate5

  Railways Inspectorate6

  Offshore Safety Division7

  Explosives Inspectorate8

  Years2

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries3

  Over 3-day injuries4

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries3

  Over 3-day injuries4

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries3

  Over 3-day injuries4

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries3

  Over 3-day injuries4

  1983

  37

  947

  n/a

  28

  161

  n/a

  10

  47

  n/a

  1

  3

  n/a

  1984

  38

  427

  n/a

  25

  127

  n/a

  13

  59

  n/a

  —

  —

  n/a

  1985

  48

  775

  n/a

  25

  166

  n/a

  8

  103

  n/a

  —

  —

  n/a

  1986–87

  34

  1,179

  11,535

  10

  185

  2,561

  4

  87

  571

  1

  16

  123

  1987–88

  26

  945

  8,855

  17

  225

  2,448

  8

  70

  573

  2

  10

  136

  1988–89

  29

  937

  7,097

  16

  310

  3,345

  9172

  64

  688

  4

  17

  150

  1989–90

  20

  652

  5,089

  10

  263

  2,697

  2

  74

  676

  —

  15

  107

  1990–91

  13

  536

  4,205

  23

  331

  3,091

  12

  91

  681

  1

  22

  124

  1991–92

  13

  499

  3,157

  17

  278

  3,226

  13

  84

  585

  —

  7

  112

  1992–93p

  6

  353

  1,799

  11

  325

  3,882

  4

  75

  509

  1

  1

  87

  n/a not available.

  p provisional.

  1Injuries at work to employees and self employed people, and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity.

  2Figures for the calendar years 1983 to 1985 and financial years from 1 April 1986 onwards.

  3Chiefly amputations, serious fractures and other injuries requiring hospitalisation for more than 24 hours. Note the definition was extended in April 1986 and therefore figures for 1983 to 1985 should not be directly compared with those for later years.

  4Injuries causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days.

  5Based on reports made under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1980 (NADOR) for the years 1983 to 1985 and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR) for subsequent years. Figures for the years 1983 to 1988-89 also include reports made to the Quarries Inspectorate.

  6Based on reports made under NADOR and RIDDOR (as above) and associated railway legislation.

  7Formerly the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy. Figures based on reports made under offshore installations safety legislation.

  8Based on reports made under NADOR and RIDDOR (as in 5 above) and explosives legislation.

  9Includes the 167 fatalities arising from the Piper Alpha disaster.

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the figures for operating surplus accumulated from Government-funded training programmes for(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c)1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Government-funded training programmes in England and Wales are delivered through training and enterprise councils.

  TECs may generate operating surpluses by sub-contracting training programmes at lower unit prices than those negotiated with the Department, by keeping administrative costs below the management fee paid by the Department, by earning other income or by carrying out other business in accordance with their articles and memorandum of association.

  The surplus generated from all these activities is shown in the TECs published accounts. The operating surplus accumulated specifically from Government-funded training programmes is not published separately.

  A full set of accounts for each TEC, for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total budget for training for work, including the participants' allowance, for England and Wales in 1994–95.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) deaths, (b) major injuries and (c) minor injuries were reported to (i) the mines inspectorate, (ii) the railways inspectorate, (iii) the offshore safety inspectorate and (iv) the explosives inspectorate in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information is provided in the following table. There was no overall requirement to notify "minor" injuries—that is, those causing incapacity for work for more than three days during the years 1983 to 1985.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total budget for the training for work scheme for England and Wales in 1994–95, including training allowances, is £749 million.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the 1993–94 budgets for training for work and youth training was unspent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not yet available. It will be published in the Department's appropriation accounts later in the year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total accumulated surplus held in TEC reserves that is now available to TECs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total accumulated surplus held in training and enterprise council reserves is shown in the TECs' published accounts. A full set of accounts for each TEC, for the year ending 31 March 1993, has been placed in the Library.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Workplace Deaths
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, columns 813-14, what was the result of each prosecution listed in the table supplied.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Workplace Deaths

    OUTCOME OF THE PROSECUTIONS WHICH FOLLOWED FATALITIES IN 1992–93
    Wales and South West Region
    Six fatalities led to prosecution action:

    Case 1: 3 informations laid, all convicted with fines of £350 (x3).

    Case 2: 3 informations laid, each convicted with fines of £12,000, £6,000 and £2,000.

    Case 3: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £15,000.

    Case 4: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £100,000.

    Case 5: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £160.

    Case 6: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £5,000.

    Home Counties Region
    Seven fatalities led to prosecution action:

    Case 1: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £480.

    Case 2: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £300.

    Case 3: 8 informations laid, all convicted. Fines imposed of £20,000, £10,000 (x2) and £1,000 (x2). Three remaining results recorded as 'guilty other' eg community service.

    Case 4: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £15,000.

    Case 5: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £2,000.

    Case 6: 2 informations laid, both convicted with fines of £1,000 and £200.

    Case 7: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £10,000.

    London and South East Region
    Five fatalities led to prosecution action:

    Case 1: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £7,000.

    Case 2: 4 informations laid, all convicted with fines of £40,000.

    Case 3: 2 informations laid, both convicted with fines of £15,000.

    Case 4: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £13,000.

    Case 5: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £10,000.

    Midlands Region
    Nine fatalities led to prosecution action:

    Case 1: 8 informations laid, 7 convictions and 1 withdrawn. Fines imposed of £20,000, £2,500 (x2) and £400 (x4).

    Case 2: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £12,000.

    Case 3: 1 information laid, withdrawn.

    Case 4: 2 informations laid, convicted with a fine of £30,000 and 1 where yet recorded.

    Case 5: 3 informations laid, 2 convicted with fines of £5,000 and £2,500 and 1 withdrawn.

    Case 6: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £17,500.

    Case 7: 3 informations laid, all convicted with fines of £1,750 (x2) and £1,000.

    Case 8: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £2,000.

    Case 9: 2 informations laid, both convicted with fines of £750.

    Yorkshire and North East Region
    Ten fatalities led to prosecution action:

    Case 1: 2 informations laid, 1 convicted with a fine of £1,500 and 1 withdrawn.

    Case 2: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £1,000.

    Case 3: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £1,500.

    Case 4: 2 informations laid, both later withdrawn.

    Case 5: 2 informations laid, both convicted with fines of £3,000 and £520.

    Case 6: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £675.

    Case 7: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £250,000.

    Case 8: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £1,000.

    Case 9: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £12,000.

    Case 10: 1 information laid, dismissed.

    North West Region
    Eight fatalities led to prosecution action:

    Case 1: 2 informations laid, 1 convicted with a fine of £1,200 and 1 withdrawn.

    Case 2: 2 informations laid, both convicted with fines of £1,500
    556
    and £750.

    Case 3: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £7,000.

    Case 4: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £2,000.

    Case 5: 2 informations laid, 1 convicted with a fine of £3,000 and 1 withdrawn.

    Case 6: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £3,500.

    Case 7: 2 informations laid, 1 convicted with a fine of £750 and 1 withdrawn.

    Case 8: 3 informations laid, all dismissed.

    Scotland Region
    Ten fatalities led to prosecution action:

    Case 1: 1 information laid, withdrawn.

    Case 2: 1 information laid, dismissed.

    Case 3: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £6,000.

    Case 4: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £1,000.

    Case 5: 2 informations laid, 1 convicted (no fine recorded yet) and 1 withdrawn.

    Case 6: information laid, convicted with a fine of £1,000.

    Case 7: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £2,000.

    Case 8: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £400.

    Case 9: 2 informations laid, 1 convicted with a fine of £10,000 and 1 dismissed.

    Case 10: 1 information laid, convicted with a fine of £7,500.

  Working Hours
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research he has commissioned about any link between long working hours and the health and safety of employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Professor J. M. Harrington of the University of Birmingham institute of occupational health was commissioned last year to identify and evaluate pertinent medical and scientific literature relating to the effect, if any, of hours of work on employees' health.

  The Health and Safety Executive has previously commissioned the studies "Shift Work and Health—a Critical Review of the Literature", Harrington, 1978 and "Shiftwork, Health and Safety—an overview of the scientific literature 1978–1990", Waterhouse, Folkard and Minors, 1992.

  Unemployment (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment for the Liverpool, Riverside constituency at the latest available date; and where Liverpool, Riverside stands in the list of constituencies ranked by level of unemployment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In February 1994, unadjusted claimant unemployment in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency was 7,019. Only unemployment rates provide meaningful rankings for areas, such as parliamentary constituencies, with different sized work forces. Official unemployment rates are not available below travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to reduce unemployment in(a) Merseyside and (b) Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The overall policy of the Department is to promote a free and flexible labour market that is designed to help encourage employment in Merseyside and Liverpool, as in all areas.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council held on 19 April.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I attended the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council held on 19 April in Luxembourg and was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security.

  The Council considered a number of Commission proposals, but no final decisions were reached and no votes were taken.

  The directive on the protection of young workers was discussed in the light of the Commission's proposed amendments to the common position reached at the Social Affairs Council on 23 November. No decision was reached. We were successful in our efforts at the meeting to resist European Parliament attempts to remove the United Kingdom's opt-out. Most member states indicated that they could accept a presidency proposal which included the whole of the United Kingdom opt-out and its renewability. There will be a further discussion of the directive at the Social Affairs Council in June.

  The Commission's draft programme on social exclusion was also discussed and will be considered further at the June Council.

  The Council reached agreement in principle on the composition of the administrative board of the proposed health and safety agency in Bilbao. A number of other outstanding issues were returned to Council working groups for further discussion.

  The Council agreed that the Commission should consider how best to take forward the draft directives on parental leave, non-standard work and the reversal of the burden of proof in equal pay and equal treatment cases. The Commissioner acknowledged that the United Kingdom maintained its opposition to the proposed directives.

  The Council heard progress reports from Commissioner Flynn on follow-up to the Delors White Paper and on responses to his own Green Paper on European social policy. There will be a substantive discussion on the Green Paper at the June Social Affairs Council meeting. The United Kingdom Government's response to the Green Paper was submitted promptly, but responses from some other member states had yet to arrive.

  The Council discussed the operation of the social protocol and the agreement of the Eleven in the light of a communication from the Commission. Commissioner Flynn provided a report on progress with the proposal on European Works Councils. Discussions between the social partners had broken down and the Commission had now agreed the text of a new proposal to be discussed under the agreement of the Eleven. The directive would not apply in the United Kingdom. Commissioner Flynn also made a preliminary presentation on a Commission communication on asylum and immigration policy.

  Finally, the Council agreed that the Commission should look into Belgian concerns about the operation of EC social security regulations for posted workers.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assurances were given when she met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation in discussing future accession to the Barents sea;

  (2) what rights of access for fishing are being purchased from Russia for (a) Spain and (b) the United Kingdom as a result of Norwegian access negotiations; and how these will be paid for;

  (3) what priority will be given to the United Kingdom against other countries when future opportunities arrive for the United Kingdom distant water fleet in the Barents sea.

  Mr. Jack
  The agreement reached between the EU and Norway on the terms for Norwegian accession to the Union provided for fishing opportunities for 8,000 tonnes of arctic cod or equivalent to be secured for the cohesion countries—Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece—from third countries. As is normal in such arrangements, the cost will be a charge to the Community budget.

  I have made clear to the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations that I will press for a United Kingdom quota share under any EU-Russia fisheries agreement which may be negotiated.

  Mauritius Initiative
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 13 April, what financial contribution is to be provided for the initiative being undertaken for Mauritius by the royal botanic gardens, Kew.

  Mr. Jack
  Two ex-horticulture diploma students from Kew are currently working on a voluntary basis with the Mauritian Wild Life Appeal Fund, supported partly by donations from several Kew-based scholarship funds. Work at Kew on propagation of a number of Mauritian endangered species for eventual reintroduction to their original habitats is supported from Ministry grant-in-aid. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, has yet to decide on future collaborative activity and levels of funding.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 23 March,Official Report, columns 318-19, if she will list the firms of consultants employed by her Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken since 1990–91.

  Mr. Jack
  Details of consultants employed by the Department—excluding agencies—since 1990–91 are set out in the table. These exclude information relating to contracts with information technology consultants, details of which were provided to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 18 April at columns 407-11.

  Number

  Coopers and Lybrand

  12

  PA Consultants

  2

  Price Waterhouse

  11

  Touche Ross

  3

  National Remote Sensing Centre

  1

  559

  Number

  Wye College

  2

  Worthy Associates

  1

  KPMG Management Consultancies/KPMG Peat Marwick

  2

  Ernst and Young

  14

  Clarke Whitehill

  1

  Ronald McIntosh

  2

  Mouncey and Partners

  5

  Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd.

  2

  Oracle

  4

  Vauntberry Plc

  1

  Robertson Gould

  1

  Institute of Terrential Ecology

  1

  Fletcher King

  1

  University of Hull

  1

  Mr. Peter Goodall

  1

  SRU Ltd.

  1

  BNSS

  3

  CCTA

  2

  Johnstone and Wright Consultants

  2

  DIS Industrial Consultants

  1

  EM Consultants

  2

  Shreeveport Management Consultancy

  2

  Ferriby Marine

  2

  Asbourne Biosciences

  2

  Duhig Berry Ltd.

  1

  Triad Special Systems Ltd.

  2

  Sequent Computer Systems

  3

  Brandt Computers

  1

  Theodore Goddall

  2

  Hoskyns Group PLc

  2

  Cambridge Ergonomics

  2

  Stoy Hayward

  1

  Quanta Learning Systems

  2

  Korda and Co. Ltd.

  2

  Lawrence Hewitt Partnership

  1

  Currie and Brown

  1

  Insight

  1

  Halcrow and Partners

  1

  LG Mouchel and Partners

  2

  Posford Duvivier

  2

  Personnel Health and Safety Ltd.

  4

  Mott Macdonald

  1

  ARC International Plc

  1

  Forward Catering Consultancy

  1

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  2

  Risks and Policy Analysis

  1

  SEMA Group

  1

  BMT Reliability Consultants Ltd.

  1

  Miro Communication Ltd.

  1

  P- E International Plc

  1

  Siemens Nixdorf

  1

  McNeil Robertson

  10

  Pentana Ltd.

  2

  Civil Service College

  10

  Dr. Hoodless

  1

  Building Energy Solution

  3

  DEGW

  1

  PSA Monitoring and Targeting Service

  3

  TM Energy Consultants

  1

  NIFES Consulting Group

  1

  MJN Facilities Management

  1

  Energy Auditing Agency Ltd.

  1

  Animal Slaughter
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence she has of infringements of directive 74/577 in other EC states.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to several alleged infringements of Directive 74/577 purporting to have taken place in other member states during 1993.

  Sheep Slaughtering, Spain
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the Spanish Agriculture Minister regarding the slaughter of sheep in Spanish abattoirs; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend raised the subject with the Spanish Agriculture Minister in the margins of the November 1993 Agriculture Council in the light of allegations about sheep being slaughtered in some Spanish abattoirs in a way contrary to EC welfare legislation. Written assurances were received that these allegations were being investigated, and that action would be taken where appropriate. My right hon. Friend wrote on 24 January seeking confirmation of the results of the investigations and measures adopted. A reply is awaited.

  Animal Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) pigs, (b) sheep, (c) calves and (d) adult cattle were exported from the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested for 1992 can be found in the Central Statistical Office publication, "Business Monitor, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom MA 20 1992", and for each earlier year the data can be found in the previous editions of this publication and its forerunners. The House of Commons Library holds a copy of these publications back to 1965.

  Livestock Haulage Vehicles
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many livestock haulage vehicles were checked on each motorway; how many were found to comply with regulations; and how many were found to be defective in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Provisions relating to the welfare of animals during transport are enforced by local authorities. Statistics from local authority sources indicate that, during the year 1992–93, 190,100 vehicle inspections were made at roadside checks, in markets and at other places; 182 prosecutions were taken under the legislation relating to welfare of animals in transport, and 61 formal cautions issued. In a further 2,725 cases advice or warnings were given. Additional information is not recorded centrally.

  Departmental Campaigns
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 743, by what date she intends to place in the Library summaries of market research relating to her Department's campaigns.

  Mr. Jack
  Copies of market research relating to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food campaigns have been placed in the Library.

  Farm Statistics
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which English counties are grouped together for the purposes of compiling the annual farm business survey; and which universities and colleges are commissioned to carry out the survey for each group.
  561
  Mrs. Shephard
  Appendix 4 of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" provides a list of the centres engaged in the collection of data for the Farm Business Survey. The table shows the counties and districts allocated to each centre.

  Province

  County

  Northern

  Cumbria

  Newcastle

  Durham

  Tyne and Wear MC

  Northumberland

  North Eastern

  Clevland

  Askham Bryan

  South Yorkshire MC

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Humberside (excluding South Humberside)

  North Western

  Cheshire

  Manchester

  Lancashire

  Merseyside MC

  Greater Manchester MC

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  East Midland

  Derbyshire

  Nottingham

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire (excluding Holland)

  Northamptonshire

  Nottinghamshire (South Humberside only)

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridge

  Cambridgeshire

  Essex

  Hertfordshire

  Holland (Lincolnshire)

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Greater London (East)

  South Eastern

  Kent

  Wye

  Surrey

  East Sussex

  West Sussex

  Southern

  Berkshire

  Reading

  Buckinghamshire

  Hampshire

  Isle of Wight

  Oxfordshire

  Greater London (West)

  Gloucester

  Hereford and Worcester

  Avon

  Warwickshire

  Wiltshire

  West Midlands MC

  South Western

  Cornwall

  Exeter

  Devon

  Dorset

  Somerset

  Scilly Isles

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many producers were entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances for each farm business survey county group in each year since 1992 and in 1994.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The table provides information on the number of claims paid in 1992 and 1993 corresponding to the areas covered by each of the FBS provinces. Information for 1994 is not available.562

  Number of HLCA claims paid

  FBS Province

  1992 Number

  1993 Number

  Northern

  4,529

  4,434

  North Eastern

  3,034

  3,006

  North Western

  2,899

  2,896

  East Midland

  938

  938

  Southern

  425

  427

  South Western

  2,701

  2,608

  ENGLAND

  14,526

  14,309

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average net farm income of farmers and their spouses for(a) each English county and (b) each farm business survey county group, of all (i) SDA, (ii) DA, and (iii) less-favoured area farms and for (1) SDA, (2) DA farms and (3) less-favoured area farms larger than eight ESUs.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Information on farm incomes is available from the Farm Business Survey which collects data from a sample of farms classified as full time—that is with eight ESU or more. The sample for the Farm Business Survey is intended to provide estimates for three regions of England. The results for individual FBS provinces are liable to larger margins of error than for these regions and results are not available for individual counties. For those provinces for which there is a large enough sample for some average results to be provided, the following table provides weighted estimates of the net farm income for farms classified as cattle and sheep, less-favoured area, for the 1992–93 accounting year. Comparable information for farms with less than eight ESU is not available.

  Cattle and Sheep LFA farms by FBS province Net farm income for farms of 8 ESU and over

  1992–93 accounting year

  FBS Province and farm type

  Estimated net farm income (£'000 per farm)

  Northern

  Newcastle

  Specialist Sheep (SDA)

  20·1

  Specialist Beef (SDA)

  1n/a

  Mixed Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  18:·9

  All Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  18·8

  Cattle and Sheep (DA)

  n/a

  Cattle and Sheep (LFA)

  17·7

  Nort Eastern

  Askham Bryan

  Specialist Sheep (SDA)

  n/a

  Specialist Beef (SDA)

  n/a

  Mixed Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  n/a

  All Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  20·1

  Cattle and Sheep (DA)

  n/a

  Cattle and Sheep (LFA)

  20·1

  North Western

  Manchester

  Specialist Sheep (SDA)

  n/a

  Specialist Beef (SDA)

  n/a

  Mixed Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  18·1

  All Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  15·7

  Cattle and Sheep (DA)

  n/a

  Cattle and Sheep (LFA)

  10·8

  South Western

  Exeter

  Specialist Sheep (SDA)

  n/a

  Specialist Beef (SDA)

  n/a

  563

  FBS Province and farm type

  Estimated net farm income (£'000 per farm)

  Mixed Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  11·9

  All Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  9·9

  Cattle and Sheep (DA)

  4·8

  Cattle and Sheep (LFA)

  7·3

  1 n/a not available, sample size too small to provide results for individual farm type and province.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total value of less-favoured area farming to the economy of(a) each English county and (b) each farm business survey county group.

  Mrs. Shephard
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total value in actual and real terms of all livestock subsidies to(a) all less-favoured area farms and (b) less-favoured area farms larger than eight ESUs, for (i) each English county and (ii) each farm business survey county group in (1) 1992, (2) 1993 and (3) 1994.

  Mrs. Shephard
  I regret that detailed information on the subsidies paid to less-favoured area farms is not separately available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total value in actual terms and real terms of HLCA payments to(a) all less-favoured area farms and (b) less-favoured area farm area farms larger than eight ESUs for (i) each English county and (ii) each farm business survey county group in (1) 1992, (2) 1993 and (3) 1994.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The table shows the total HLCA payments on all farms in each county and Farm Business Survey province for 1992 and 1994. Information on payments is not separately available for farms larger than eight ESU and information for 1994 is not yet complete.

  HLCA payments in 1992 and 1993

  FBS province and county

  1992 Actual

  1993 Actual

  19931 Real 1992 prices

  £

  £

  £

  East Midland

  Derbyshire

  1,492,600

  1,335,369

  1,314,489

  1,492,600

  1,335,369

  1,314,489

  North Eastern

  Cleveland

  63,938

  61,192

  60,236

  Yorkshire

  7,149,782

  6,098,286

  6,002,933

  7,213,720

  6,159,479

  6,063,168

  North Western

  Lancashire

  2,057,098

  1,776,157

  1,748,385

  Cheshire

  286,871

  235,269

  231,590

  Shropshire

  1,695,346

  1,579,925

  1,555,221

  Staffordshire

  530,327

  496,802

  489,034

  Greater Manchester

  237,922

  270,279

  266,053

  4,807,564

  4,358,433

  4,290,284

  Northern

  Cumbria

  9,280,801

  7,745,413

  7,624,304

  564

  FBS province and county

  1992 Actual

  1993 Actual

  19931 Real 1992 prices

  £

  £

  £

  Tyne and Wear

  5,181

  9,780

  9,627

  Northumberland

  6,026,492

  5,143,321

  5,062,899

  Durham

  2,413,715

  2,184,100

  2,149,949

  17,726,189

  15,082,613

  14,846,780

  South Western

  Somerset

  1,283,182

  1,049,116

  1,032,711

  Cornwall

  1,161,666

  1,101,137

  1,083,920

  Devon

  3,824,839

  3,567,201

  3,511,424

  Scilly Isles

  1,899

  1,646

  1,620

  6,271,586

  5,719,099

  5,629,675

  Southern

  Hereford and Worcester

  861,934

  758,535

  746,674

  861,934

  758,535

  746,674

  ENGLAND

  38,373,593

  33,413,528

  32,891,070

  1Deflated by the retail prices index, all items.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial value in actual and real terms has been removed from the value of HLCA payments to(a) all less-favoured area farms and (b) less-favoured area farms larger than eight ESUs for (i) each English county and (ii) each farm business survey county group following the cuts in HLCAs in (1) 1993 and (2) 1994.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The total change in the value of HLCA payments to farmers in the less favoured areas of England between 1992 and 1993 was -£4,960,065 divided among the counties and FBS provinces with LFA land as shown in the table. Information in respect of businesses larger than eight ESU is not available and information for 1994 is not yet complete.

  Change in HLCA payments between 1992 and 1993

  FBS Province and County

  Change in payments between 1992 and 1993

  Actual

  Real 1992 prices1

  £

  £

  East Midland

  Derbyshire

  -157,231

  -178,111

  -157,231

  -178,111

  North Eastern

  Cleveland

  -2,746

  -3,702

  Yorkshire

  -1,051,495

  -1,146,849

  -1,054,241

  -1,150,551

  North Western

  Lancashire

  -280,940

  -308,712

  Cheshire

  -51,603

  -55,281

  Shropshire

  -115,421

  -140,125

  Staffordshire

  -33,525

  -41,293

  Greater Manchester

  32,357

  28,131

  -449,131

  -517,280

  Northern

  Cumbria

  -1,535,389

  -1,656,497

  Tyne and Wear

  4,599

  4,446

  Northumberland

  -883,171

  -963,592

  Durham

  -229,616

  -263,766

  565

  FBS Province and County

  Change in payments between 1992 and 1993

  Actual

  Real 1992 prices1

  £

  £

  -2,643,576

  -2,879,409

  South Western

  Somerset

  -234,067

  -250,471

  Cornwall

  -60,529

  -77,746

  Devon

  -257,638

  -313,415

  Scilly Isles

  -253

  -279

  -552,487

  -641,911

  Southern

  Hereford and Worcester

  -103,399

  -115,260

  -103,399

  -115,260

  England

  -4,960,065

  -5,482,523

  1 Deflated by the RPI all items

  Estimated number of workers in 1992

  Number of full-time workers on agricultural holdings1

  Total work force in employment2

  English county

  On all agricultural holdings

  On agricultural holdings wholly or mainly in the LFA

  Avon

  2,986

  0

  460,000

  Bedfordshire

  2,291

  0

  263,000

  Berkshire

  1,440

  0

  373,000

  Buckinghamshire

  2,744

  0

  373,000

  Cleveland

  742

  207

  223,000

  Cambridgeshire

  6,718

  0

  320,000

  Cheshire

  7,522

  257

  451,000

  Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly)

  9,668

  1,729

  199,000

  Cumbria

  10,321

  4,285

  233,000

  Derbyshire

  5,560

  1,930

  426,000

  Devon

  15,827

  3,489

  466,000

  Dorset

  5,328

  0

  289,000

  Durham

  3,394

  1,762

  254,000

  Essex

  7,034

  0

  721,000

  Gloucestershire

  5,017

  0

  257,000

  Hampshire

  6,232

  0

  760,000

  Humberside

  7,896

  0

  371,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  10,420

  484

  338,000

  Hertfordshire

  2,416

  0

  494,000

  Isle of Wight

  870

  0

  55,000

  Kent

  8,442

  0

  718,000

  Lancashire

  9,706

  2,528

  641,000

  Leicestershire

  4,620

  0

  425,000

  Lincolnshire

  13,871

  0

  287,000

  Merseyside

  936

  0

  554,000

  Greater London

  837

  0

  2,946,000

  Greater Manchester

  2,090

  460

  1,102,000

  Norfolk

  11,359

  0

  354,000

  Northamptonshire

  3,268

  0

  299,000

  Northamberland (including Tyne and Wear MC)

  4,956

  2,652

  574,000

  Nottinghamshire

  3,747

  0

  458,000

  Oxfordshire

  3,905

  0

  287,000

  Shropshire

  8,218

  1,094

  196,000

  Somerset

  8,218

  1,094

  196,000

  Staffordshire

  6,792

  1,248

  495,000

  Suffolk

  7,943

  0

  303,000

  Surrey

  3,099

  0

  495,000

  East Sussex

  2,989

  0

  301,000

  West Sussex

  4,963

  0

  334,000

  West Sussex

  3,930

  0

  234,000

  Warwickshire

  5,455

  0

  278,000

  Wiltshire

  5,455

  0

  278,000

  West Midlands

  682

  0

  1,055,000

  South Yorkshire

  2,315

  401

  546,000

  North Yorkshire

  15,549

  3,799

  362,000

  566
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people including farmers, spouses and workers are employed full time in(a) all farming and (b) less-favoured area farming for (i) each English county and (ii) each farm business survey county group; and how employment related to less favoured area farming ranks in terms of other classes of industrial employment for (1) each English county and (2) each farm business survey county group.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The table provides estimates of the number of full-time workers, including all spouses, on all agricultural holdings and on those holdings which are wholly or mainly in the less favoured areas as recorded in the agricultural census at June 1992. Also supplied are estimates of the total employment as recorded in the Department of Employment's Labour Force Survey.
  567

  Number of full-time workers on agricultural holdings1

  Total work force in employment2

  English county

  On all agricultural holdings

  On agricultural holdings wholly or mainly in the LFA

  West Yorkshire

  4,267

  1,485

  944,000

  FBS province

  Eastern

  43,079

  0

  32,455,000

  East Midland

  27,773

  1,930

  411,895,000

  Nothern

  18,671

  8,699

  1,061,000

  North Eastern

  29,110

  5,892

  52,446,000

  North Western

  35,264

  5,587

  3,439,000

  Southern

  44,150

  484

  67,360,000

  South Eastern

  19,493

  0

  1,848,000

  South Western

  39,587

  5,757

  1,166,000

  ENGLAND

  257,127

  28,349

  21,670,000

  1Includes whole time farmers, partners and directors, all spouses, salaried managers and regular whole time hired and family workers, excludes minor holdings.

  2 The estimates of the total work force (full and part time) in employment from Department of Employment Labour Force Survey, June-August 1992.

  3Excluding Holland (Lincs) and Greater London (E).

  4Excluding South Humberside and including all of Lincolnshire.

  5Including all of Humberside.

  6Including all of Greater London.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average age of less-favoured area farmers in(a) each English county and (b) each farm business survey county group.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The Farm Structure Survey 1990 contains information on the age of the holder of the farm by age band for a sample of about 40,000 holdings in England. The table provides estimates of the average age of holder based on analysis of this age band data for farms which are wholly or mainly in the less favoured area. The Farm Business Survey also collects data on the age of the holder from a smaller sample of holdings. The average age of holder in England in 1992–93 on holdings wholly and mainly in the less favoured areas, based on this source, was 51.

  Estimated average of the holder of farms wholly or mainly in the less favoured areas in 19901

  FBS province and county2

  Estimated average age of holder

  East Midland

  Derbyshire

  52

  52

  Northern

  Cumbria

  51

  Durham

  54

  Northumberland

  51

  52

  North Eastern

  Cleveland

  54

  North Yorkshire

  52

  South Yorkshire

  49

  West Yorkshire

  52

  52

  North Western

  Cheshire

  52

  Greater Manchester

  53

  Lancashire

  52

  Shropshire

  53

  Staffordshire

  53

  53

  568

  FBS province and county2

  Estimated average age of holder

  Southern

  Hereford and Worcester

  54

  54

  South Western

  Cornwall

  53

  Devon

  54

  Isles of Scilly

  47

  Somerset

  53

  54

  England

  52

  52

  Farm Structure Survey 1990

  1The holder of the farm is the person legally or economically responsible for the holding.

  2 Only those counties which contain holdings which are wholly or mainly in the less-favoured area are shown.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average level of indebtedness of all(a) SDA, (b) DA and (c) less-favoured area farms and for (i) SDA, (ii) DA and (iii) less-favoured area farms larger than eight ESUs for (1) each English county and (2) each farm business survey county group.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Information on farm indebtedness is available from the Farm Business Survey which collects data from a sample of farms classified as full time—that is, with eight ESU or more. The sample for the Farm Business Survey is intended to provide estimates for three regions of England. The results for individual FBS provinces are liable to larger margins of error than for these regions and results are not available for individual counties. For those provinces for which there is a large enough sample for average results to be provided, the table provides weighted estimates of the total external liabilities and total external liabilities as a percentage of total assets for farms classified
  569
  as cattle and sheep LFA for the 1992–93 accounting year. Comparable information for farms with less than eight ESU is not available.

  Cattle and sheep (LFA) farms by FBS province Total liabilities and net worth for farms of eight ESU and over

  1992–93 accounting year

  FBS province and farm type

  Estimated total external liabilities (£000 per farm)

  Estimated total external liabilities as a Percentage of total assets

  Northern

  Newcastle

  Specialist sheep (SDA)

  20·1

  9·0

  Specialist beef (SDA)

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  Mixed cattle and sheep (SDA)

  41·8

  12·0

  All cattle and sheep (DA)

  34·0

  11·0

  Cattle and sheep (DA)

  n.a

  n.a

  Cattle and sheep (LFA)

  32·7

  11·0

  North Eastern

  Asham Bryan

  Specialist sheep (SDA)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Specialist beef (SDA)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  All cattle and sheep (SDA)

  42·6

  14·0

  Cattle and sheep (DA)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Cattle and sheep (LFA)

  42·6

  14·0

  North western

  Manchester

  Specialist sheep (SDA)

  n.a.

  n.a

  Specialist beef (SDA)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Mixed cattle and sheep (SDA)

  27·4

  8·0

  All cattle and sheep (SDA)

  25.4

  8.0

  Cattle and sheep (DA)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Cattle and sheep (LFA)

  21·5

  7·0

  South Western

  Exeter

  Year

  1964

  1973

  1979

  Basis for measurement of size

  1963 SMD

  1968 SMD

  1976 SMD

  1972–1974 ESU

  Threshold for "full-time" farm

  275 SMD

  275 SMD

  250 SMD

  14 ESU

  Minimum number of either:

  beef cows

  261

  266

  362

  437

  or ewes

  3219

  3314

  3395

  4400

  1Four ESU was used as the lower size unit in conjunction with a requirement that farms must also have at least one annual labour unit.

  2 Assuming 0·5 hectares of permanent grass and 1·25 hectares of rough grazing per beef cow.

  3 Assuming 0·05 hectares of permanent grass and 0·125 hectares of rough grazing per ewe.

  4Assuming one lamb per ewe.

SCOTLAND

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for the latest year for which the individual figures are available for the Scottish blood transfusion service the total number of units of(a) red cell concentrate, (b) platelet (1) single donor and (2) random, (c) fresh frozen plasma, (d) cryoprecipitate and (e) other

  Issued within the NHS

  Issued to non-NHS establishments

  In Scotland

  In the United Kingdom, excluding Scotland

  In Scotland

  Within the United Kingdom excluding Scotland

  Outwith the United kingdom

  Total

  Fresh products issued from regional transfusion centres in 1992–93

  Red cell concentrate (units)

  244,683

  110,546

  2,928

  Nil

  Nil

  258,157

  Platelet concentrate

  1: random donor (units)

  68,429

  Nil

  124

  Nil

  Nil

  68,553

  570

  FBS province and farm type

  Estimated total external liabilities (£'000 per farm)

  Estimated total external liabilities as a percentage of total assets

  Specialist sheep (SDA)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Specialist beef (SDA)

  n.a

  n.a.

  Mixed cattle and sheep (SDA)

  53·5

  17·0

  All cattle and sheep (SDA)

  42·3

  14·0

  Cattle and sheep (DA)

  35·9

  11·0

  Cattle and sheep (LFA)

  39·1

  12·0

  1n.a.—not available. Sample size too small to provide results for individual farm type and province.

  All data based on closing valuations.

  Less-favoured areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 277, what was the minimum level of agricultural activity equivalent 30, 21 and 15 years ago.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The details of the system of farm classification has changed several times over the period from 1964. In 1964, 1973 and 1979 size was measured by standard man days. In 1979 size was also measured in terms of European size units for the purposes of analysing the Farm Business Survey.

  The SMD coefficients for each hectare of crops or head of livestock changed in 1963, 1968 and 1976 and the threshold for defining full time also changed. The table shows the changes for the years requested.

  plasma derived products which are dispensed (i) within the national health service in Scotland, (ii) within the United Kingdom, excluding Scotland, within the national health service, (iii) to non-national health service establishments within Scotland, (iv) to non-national health service establishments within the United Kingdom, excluding Scotland and (v) to non-national health service establishments outwith the United Kingdom; and what was the total income to the Scottish blood transfusion service from each of these transactions.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is as follows:
  571

  Issued within the NHS

  Issued to non-NHS establishments

  In Scotland

  In the United Kingdom excluding Scotland

  In Scotland

  Within the United Kingdom excluding Scotland

  Outwith the United Kingdom

  Total

  2: single donor (pheresis) (units)

  2,283

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  2,283

  Fresh frozen plasma (units)

  20,880

  Nil

  120

  Nil

  Nil

  21,000

  Cryoprecipitate (units)

  10,089

  Nil

  72

  Nil

  Nil

  10,161

  Total units issued

  346,364

  10,546

  3,244

  Nil

  Nil

  360,154

  Plasma-derived products issued from Protein Fractionation Centre, 1992–93

  Albumin and SPPS (bottles)

  71,901

  214,454

  10

  Nil

  3Nil

  86,365

  Factor VIII (million international units)

  11·43

  22·07

  Nil

  Nil

  3Nil

  13.50

  Factor IX (million international units)

  2·05

  20·15

  Nil

  Nil

  3Nil

  2·20

  Anti-rhesus (D) (vials)

  13,342

  24,068

  30

  Nil

  3Nil

  17,440

  Anti-hepatitis B (vials)

  968

  2270

  1

  Nil

  3Nil

  1,239

  Anti-zoster (vials)

  810

  2162

  Nil

  Nil

  3Nil

  972

  Anti-tetanus (vials)

  2,077

  21,004

  Nil

  Nil

  3Nil

  3,081

  Anti-GL (vials)

  Nil

  2387

  Nil

  Nil

  'Nil

  387

  Intravenous immunoglobulin (vials)

  20,453

  24,834

  Nil

  Nil

  3Nil

  25,287

  Intramuscular immunoglobulin (vials)

  27,485

  24,829

  18

  Nil

  3Nil

  32,332

  Recovery of handling costs (£)4

  Nil

  4808,594

  470,265

  Nil

  Nil

  4878,859

  1This includes NHS supplies to the Army blood supply depot at Aldershot.

  2This figure is almost entirely made up of products sent to the NHS in Northern Ireland. These products are all derived from plasma contributed by Northern Ireland donors which is processed by the PFC and returned to the NHS in Northern Ireland.

  3Some very small amounts are sent overseas as humanitarian aid on rare occasions but no figures are available.

  4 This represents the administration and handling charge. There is no charge for the blood or blood products.

  Medical Teaching and Research
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board for each year since 1991, the additional costs of teaching and research, allocated at constant 1991 prices; and if he will make a statement.

  £million (at constant 1991–92 prices)

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Grampian

  15·186

  16·061

  15·700

  15·311

  Greater Glasgow

  32·821

  32·691

  29·692

  29·329

  Lothian

  26·112

  27·714

  25·916

  25·226

  Tayside

  15·628

  16·305

  14·534

  14·323

  Notes:

  1. Allocations for 1991–92 were based on actual student numbers from two years before, ie 1989–90. From 1992–93 onwards, allocations have been based on estimated student numbers for the year of allocation.

  2. From 1993–94 onwards no additional costs of teaching and research have been made for dental students but the running costs of dental hospitals continue to be met.

  Royal Alexandra Health Trust
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State: for Scotland (1) if he will commission an inquiry into the first year of operation of the Royal Alexandra Health Trust, with particular reference to budgets, waiting lists, staff morale and the effectiveness of patient care;

  (2) what were the planned (a) revenue and (b) capital budgets for the Royal Alexandra Hospital Trust at the levels set on 1 April 1993 for the 1993–94 financial year; what out-turn figures were achieved on these figures as at 31 March; what is the reason for any variance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  No. The trust is required to publish an annual report on its operations and this has to be presented to a public meeting by 30 September.

  Revenue budgets are related to income and are set by the trust when contract negotiations have been completed with trust income for the year determined. For 1993–94 the total income was forecast as £42·6 million. The capital
  572
  Mr. Stewart
  Allocations for the additional costs of teaching and research were made to the four teaching health boards as follows:

  expenditure permissible by the trust in 1993–94 as part of the external financing limit set by the management executive was £1,036,000.

  The out-turn figures for the year ended 31 March 1994 are not yet available. The trust is confident that it will meet the following statutory financial targets:

  to break even after interest payments,

  to make a 6 per cent. return on relevant net assets and

  to deliver the agreed EFL.

  Public Sanitation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he, or any of the Ministers in his Department, last paid an official visit to a public water works, water pumping station or reservoir to assess the needs of the public sanitation industry.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Housing paid an official visit to Lothian regional council's department of water and drainage on 21 September 1989. He inspected the Seafield sewage treatment works and Levenhall and River Esk pumping
  573
  stations. Water and sewerage matters have also been discussed at the normal ministerial meetings with councils' representatives.

  Whisky Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has consulted the Scotch whisky industry on the economic impact on it of the proposed restructuring and possible future privatisation of water and sewerage services; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no proposals for privatisation of water and sewerage services in Scotland. We have corresponded with distilling industry interests about the reorganisation of water and sewerage. This industry has also been represented at meetings with Scottish Office officials. The views of the industry have been noted and exchanges will continue to take place in the usual way.

  Braille Ballot Papers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to provide Braille ballot papers at polling stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. The issue of electoral forms design is currently being reviewed by a working group set up after the 1992 general election under the aegis of the Secretaries of State for the Home Departments.

  Blair Castle
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance has been provided by Scottish Enterprise or any of its subsidiary bodies to the Duke of Atholl, his estate or any company with which he is financially associated for the refurbishment and restoration of Blair castle, its gardens and estates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is essentially an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise company for the area, Scottish Enterprise Tayside. However, I understand that Scottish Enterprise Tayside has a training for work contract with Training Craft, a subsidiary of Scottish Conservation Projects, which currently uses the Hercules gardens at Blair castle as a project site to train adults in conservation and horticultural skills. The estate contributes substantially towards the costs of the project including those of all materials and equipment and towards some of the costs of the training supervisor and of transporting trainees to the site.

  School Buses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve safety standards on buses and coaches used to transport children to school; if he will specify the regulations which govern the transport of children to school; what proposals he has to amend these regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Matters relating to the safety of school transport including regulations are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.574
  The Department of Transport is currently considering the full technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in minibuses and coaches and matters such as the three for two concession.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed to a request from Strathclyde regional council for a capping disregard for additional current expenditure in 1994–95 in respect of the additional cost to the council of dropping the three for two rule on dedicated school transport contract vehicles and requiring the fitting of seat belts on all contract minibuses.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current length of waiting time for physiotherapy services in the Argyll and Clyde health board area; what plans he has to improve this waiting time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on waiting times for physiotherapy services is not collected centrally. Argyll and Clyde health board has received an allocation of £244·7 million for 1994–95 which, together with efficiency savings, represents an increase of 7·1 per cent. over the general allocation in the previous year. It is for the health board to decide on how to use these resources to secure reductions in waiting times for physiotherapy services and other services. I understand that the board has increased the level of funding available for paramedical services, including physiotherapy services, for 1994–95 by £100,000; and in addition, a further sum of £105,000 has been allocated for staffing a pilot study of direct access by general practitioners to physiotherapy services in one part of the board's area.

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason he was unable to agree to meet the regional chairman of Strathclyde children's panel as requested in a letter dated 8 March, to discuss the impact on disturbed and vulnerable children of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 April 1994]: The chairman of Strathclyde children's panel is one of a number of people concerned with the care of children who have made representations about the possible effects of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. We take all such representations seriously. Unfortunately my right hon. Friend's ministerial commitments do not allow him to meet all those concerned with different aspects of the Bill, but the chairman and her fellow office-bearers have been offered a meeting with Scottish Office officials.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether local enterprise companies and their contractors are required to comply with the codes of practice issued by the Government on access to official information.

  Mr. Stewart
  The new code of practice on Government information came into force on 4 April 1994. The code applies to central Government Departments, their agencies
  575
  and a number of other public bodies. The local enterprise companies are limited companies and the code does not therefore apply to them or to their contractors.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for requiring local enterprise companies(a) to implement quality assurance arrangements in fulfilment of their training duties and (b) to fulfil equal opportunities requirements.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no such proposals. The Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 lays upon Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise the duty, which may not be delegated, of keeping under continuous review the suitability and adequacy of any training provided by the two bodies or by their agents. In respect of equal opportunities, each local enterprise company, as part of its contractual agreement with either of the two bodies, is committed to providing equal opportunities regardless of race, sex or disability in the delivery of all its training programmes.

  Serviced Sites
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made by Scottish Enterprise of the supply of serviced sites of various sizes in Scotland and their adequacy; and if he will publish the information.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is essentially an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I understand that Scottish Enterprise receives information about sites in both public and private sector ownership. Much of the information is, however, supplied on a voluntary and confidential basis and Scottish Enterprise does not therefore plan to publish it.

  Health Service Staff, Ayrshire and Arran
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what staff were employed in all aspects of the health service except in general practice in Ayrshire and Arran as at 1 January 1992, 1993 and 1994 in each of the categories(a) professional administration of the service, with no direct medical or nursing responsibilities, (b) practising medical staff and (c) practising nursing staff; and what was the cost of salaries and related expenses in each of the three categories in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The information requested is shown in the tables. The figures in table 1 are as at 30 September while those in table 2 are available only at 31 March.

  Table 1

  Selected NHS staff in post in Ayrshire and Arran health board area: whole time equivalents at 30 September

  1991

  1992

  1993

  (a) Administrative and Clerical

  846·5

  913·3

  956·9

  Management Grades1

  57·0

  89·1

  113·4

  Other2

  789·5

  824·2

  843·5

  (b) Medical Staff3

  301·1

  321·1

  4399·1

  (c) Nursing Staff5

  3,567·3

  3,405·7

  3,261·7

  Students on '1992' courses and midwifery programmes not included in nursing staff totals (headcount)6

  —

  54

  107

  1Includes general managers, senior managers, staff on grades 7 and above and staff on protected grades. Protected grades may include some

  576

  staff on grades less than 7.
  Excludes nursing management staff and teachers.
  2Includes staff on grades 1 to 6.
  3Includes directors of public health/chief area medical officers and unit medical officers.
  Excludes general medical practitioners and locum appointments.
  41993 figures are provisional.
  5Includes nursing management staff and teachers.
  Excludes agency and bank nurses.
  6Students on '1992' courses and programmes in midwifery are not directly funded by the health board and are therefore excluded from the nursing staff totals.

  Table 2

  Salaries and Wages

  (£000)

  Financial Year

  Administration and Clerical1

  Medical Staff2

  Nursing Staff

  1991–92

  10,118

  13,395

  50,042

  1992–93

  12,212

  15,617

  53,078

  1 No figures are available for "Professional administration of the Service, with no direct medical or nursing responsibilities" as this is not separately identified in health board annual accounts. The figures supplied are the total salaries and wages for administration within the board and include those senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to general/senior manager pay scales.

  2Includes specialists.

  Coastal and Flood Defences
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of his Department's policy on coastal and flood defence in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office policy on coastal and flood defence is aimed at reducing the risks to people and the environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of defence measures which are technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable. Delivery of these objectives is for local authorities, who are well able to determine the needs of their areas. Schemes promoted by the councils and approved by the Secretary of State attract grant aid towards the eligible costs.

  Glasgow Development Agency
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the leisure and leisure-related projects which Glasgow development agency has contributed, is contributing, and proposes to contribute to since it was set up, and the total amounts contributed to each such project.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally. This is primarily an operational matter best taken up direct with the local enterprise company. The hon. Member may therefore wish to write to the chairman of the Glasgow development agency about the matter.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many farmers have been approached by his officials to discuss ways of reducing overgrazing in each year since the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause; and if he will make a statement;
  577
  (2) how many hill livestock compensatory allowances he has withheld in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what procedures are in place to monitor whether overgrazing has reduced following the withholding of hill livestock compensatory allowances as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance clause;

  (4) what procedures are in place to monitor whether meetings between his officials and producers to discuss ways of reducing overgrazing have led to reductions in overgrazing;

  (5) what procedures are in place to reduce environmental damage caused through overgrazing consequent on that damage continuing after hill livestock compensatory allowances are withheld as a result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause;

  (6) how many farmers have had hill livestock compensatory allowances withheld in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause.

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  outturn

  outturn

  Forcast

  Eastimate

  Sheep annual premium

  Nominal terms

  63

  76

  110

  107

  1991–92 prices

  63

  74

  105

  N/a

  Suckler cow premium

  Nominal terms

  26

  29

  19

  52

  1991–92 prices

  26

  28

  18

  N/a

  Beef special premium

  Nominal terms

  8

  6

  16

  28

  1991–92 prices

  8

  6

  15

  N/a

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what key performance targets he has set the Scottish Office Pensions Agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the Scottish Office Pensions Agency the following key targets for 1994–95, which cover important areas of service delivery and steps to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

  1. To ensure that awards and transfer payments are accurate to within 1 per cent. of their value in 98 per cent. of cases, as compared with the 1993–94 target of 2 per cent. in 97 per cent. of cases.

  2. To pay on time 99 per cent. of all pensions and lump sums where the target date for receipt of claims is met.

  3. To make transfer payments within four weeks of members' final instructions to transfer pension rights.

  4. To carry out a survey to measure customer satisfaction with administration of the national health service superannuation scheme, to analyse the results, and to produce proposals for necessary improvement.

  5. To produce a "plain English" charter standard statement, by July 1994.

  578
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: Overgrazing is assessed by agricultural officers of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department as part of the inspection programme for the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme. Discussions take place with farmers frequently about stocking rates; to date no HLCAs have been withheld because of overgrazing. The operation of the overgrazing provisions of the HLCA scheme is kept under review in individual cases by the agricultural officers concerned and more generally by the Department.

  Livestock Allowances
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the budget, in real and nominal terms for Scotland in (i) 1991, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1993 and (iv) his estimate for 1994 for(a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium and (c) the beef special premium.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The table shows expenditure by financial year under the sheep annual premium, the suckler cow premium and the beef special premium schemes in nominal terms and at constant 1991–92 prices.

  6. To award a contract for development and supply of a new pensions administration information technology system by July 1994, and to reach the last key 1994–95 milestone in the implementation plan.

  7. To optimise use of budgetary provision while keeping within direct running costs limits.

  8. To provide policy advice which is consistent with public service pension policy and takes account of operational objectives of Scottish Office departments, within the required time scales.

  Firearm and Shotgun Certificates
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum received in Scotland for(a) firearm certificates and (b) shotgun certificates during 1993 or the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The approximate sum received in Scotland during 1993 was £401,600 for firearm certificates and £371,000 for shotgun certificates.

  Monklands District Council
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received a reply to the letter he wrote to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr.
  579
  Smith) on 3 February requesting information in the right hon. and learned Member's possession which would be relevant to consideration of whether there should be a statutory inquiry into Monklands district council.

  Mr. Lang
  No. I have received no response to my request for such information, either to my letter of 3 February, or to my subsequent letter to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) of 8 February.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Business Appointments (Crown Servants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Crown servants in each Government Department applied through the business appointments

  Number of applications

  Consultant

  Other

  Year

  Number of applicants

  Total

  Referred to committee

  Uncon

  Con

  Total

  Referred to committtee

  Uncon

  Con

  Ministry of Defence

  1986

  140

  50

  13

  36

  14

  115

  25

  74

  41

  1987

  131

  41

  18

  26

  15

  117

  24

  71

  46

  1988

  89

  37

  13

  19

  18

  74

  27

  31

  43

  1989

  94

  31

  18

  18

  13

  90

  19

  31

  59

  1990

  92

  50

  9

  30

  20

  84

  21

  59

  25

  1991

  101

  35

  3

  26

  9

  110

  6

  96

  14

  1992

  121

  63

  5

  49

  14

  137

  4

  110

  27

  1993

  109

  72

  2

  46

  26

  118

  11

  80

  38

  19941

  17

  6

  1

  5

  1

  16

  2

  12

  4

  Department of Environment and Transport

  1986

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27

  2

  19

  8

  1987

  18

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23

  1

  8

  15

  1988

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31

  0

  20

  11

  1989

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  1

  14

  12

  1990

  34

  2

  0

  2

  0

  34

  3

  24

  10

  1991

  28

  9

  1

  8

  1

  20

  2

  10

  10

  1992

  26

  15

  2

  14

  1

  15

  0

  8

  7

  1993

  16

  9

  0

  8

  1

  9

  2

  6

  3

  19941

  5

  4

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1986

  34

  10

  1

  7

  3

  26

  2

  17

  9

  1987

  24

  3

  0

  2

  1

  21

  5

  14

  7

  1988

  8

  2

  1

  1

  1

  10

  2

  3

  7

  1989

  10

  4

  1

  3

  1

  9

  4

  5

  4

  1990

  22

  5

  0

  3

  2

  18

  1

  15

  3

  1991

  13

  5

  0

  4

  1

  13

  2

  4

  9

  1992

  19

  11

  1

  9

  2

  19

  1

  2

  17

  1993

  24

  11

  0

  8

  3

  14

  1

  12

  2

  1994

  10

  6

  0

  5

  1

  4

  0

  2

  2

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  1986

  20

  5

  3

  4

  1

  23

  10

  15

  8

  1987

  12

  2

  1

  2

  0

  16

  9

  10

  6

  1988

  27

  6

  0

  6

  0

  27

  9

  17

  10

  1989

  21

  5

  2

  5

  0

  18

  6

  12

  6

  1990

  13

  3

  2

  3

  0

  16

  9

  8

  8

  1991

  20

  11

  3

  9

  2

  24

  9

  9

  15

  1992

  13

  8

  4

  6

  2

  16

  14

  6

  10

  1993

  18

  6

  2

  3

  3

  16

  5

  13

  3

  19941

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Departments fo Health and Social Security

  1986

  16

  5

  1

  5

  0

  37

  0

  10

  27

  1987

  5

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  3

  1

  1988

  32

  10

  1

  8

  2

  23

  0

  20

  3

  1989

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  10

  0

  1990

  7

  3

  0

  3

  0

  7

  1

  2

  5

  1991

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  580
  system to take up an outside appointment (a) as a consultant and (b) otherwise; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is not all available in the form requested. Most applications are considered only by Departments. Details of those cases are not held centrally. The following tables give the total number of Crown servants in each year who made an application that was approved in consultation with the Cabinet Office. Figures are broken down by numerically significant departments. They show the numbers of applications to undertake independent consultancy and other work and, in each category, how many applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. They also show how many applications were approved unconditionally, or were approved with conditions.
  581

  Number of applications

  Consultant

  Other

  Year

  Number of applicants

  Total

  Referred to committee

  Uncon

  Con

  Total

  Referred to committtee

  Uncon

  Con

  1992

  3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1993

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  19941

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1986

  6

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  0

  3

  2

  1987

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  2

  1

  1988

  6

  1

  1

  1

  0

  6

  4

  4

  2

  1989

  9

  3

  0

  3

  0

  9

  1

  4

  5

  1990

  6

  2

  0

  2

  0

  7

  0

  4

  3

  1991

  13

  1

  0

  1

  0

  12

  0

  6

  6

  1992

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  4

  2

  1993

  5

  3

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  2

  19941

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Inland Revenue

  1986

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1987

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1988

  4

  1

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  3

  0

  1989

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  3

  0

  1990

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  0

  9

  2

  1991

  4

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1992

  7

  3

  0

  3

  0

  4

  0

  2

  0

  1993

  3

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  19941

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Others

  1986

  12

  15

  0

  13

  2

  26

  5

  20

  6

  1987

  10

  20

  2

  15

  5

  32

  3

  30

  2

  1988

  11

  9

  1

  7

  2

  20

  4

  10

  10

  1989

  29

  11

  1

  9

  2

  20

  4

  10

  8

  1990

  20

  9

  2

  6

  3

  11

  3

  7

  4

  1991

  22

  17

  3

  15

  2

  25

  4

  20

  5

  1992

  28

  18

  0

  15

  3

  15

  5

  15

  0

  1993

  20

  10

  1

  7

  3

  15

  5

  15

  0

  19941

  11

  6

  0

  5

  1

  5

  2

  5

  0

  1 to 31 March 1994.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, columns 767-68, if he will publish the results of the analysis of applications received in respect of the 1994 charter mark scheme and the analysis of the responses and sales in respect of each HMSO campaign.

  Mr. David Davis
  We propose to conduct and publish research into the effectiveness and promotion of the 1994 charter mark scheme in the autumn after the awards are made.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 14 March, Official Report, column 488, which gives details of sales in respect of each HMSO campaign. Sales of British Standards Institution titles now exceed £200,000. Detailed analysis of the responses to each campaign are commercially confidential.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, columns 87-96, what were the totals for (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland of (i) spending by publicly-funded research bodies on research establishments and (ii) numbers of staff employed; and what each of those figures represents as a percentage of the United Kingdom total.
  582
  Mr. David Davis
  This information is not available in the form requested. The table gives a breakdown of total spending by research councils on their establishments for the period 1992–93 and the percentage each figure represents of the United Kingdom total.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  England

  406·1

  87·7

  Wales

  17·1

  3·7

  Scotland

  39·6

  8·6

  Northern Ireland

  0·1

  —

  Total

  462·9

  100·0

  For details on the staffing of research council establishments, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 21 March, Official Report, columns 87-96.

  Electronic Mail (Interception)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research has been sponsored by the Government scientific research grants into development of encryption technology to protect data transmitted by electronic mail from illicit interception.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Research council funding has supported recent projects at five universities on the development of encryption technology, which have included work to protect data transmitted by electronic mail. The projects studied: the design and analysis of
  583
  encryption algorithms, real-time compression and encryption of information in multi-media network, formal analysis of cryptographic protocols and finite automation cryptography. Funding has also been provided for a current project in the LINK personal communications programme on security studies for third generation mobile telecommunications systems.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his evaluation of the likely time taken to provide information to inquirers who apply under his new code of practice on Government information in cases which are referred to the ombudsman for evaluation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This will vary from case to case, but the ombudsman has said that he hopes to be able to complete investigations of this nature in a matter of weeks.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the reasons for the exclusion of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee from the list of bodies covered by his code of practice on access to governmental information.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Paragraph 6 of the code states that it applies to those Government Departments and other bodies within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman. The radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee is not within the ombudsman's jurisdiction and is not therefore covered by the code.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) of 29 March,Official Report, columns 608-9, how many inquiries have been received at the telephone point mentioned to obtain copies of his code of practice on open government; and what responses to his consultation on the draft code of practice led to the change made to paragraph 15 on statutory and other restrictions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Some 242 such inquiries had been received up to and including 15 April. The responses from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, published in its "Secrets" newspaper, the Consumers Association, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors and the Data Protection Registrar raised general issues about exemption (xv) of the draft code of practice which were taken into account in making the change described in my answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 26.

WALES

  Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information technology consultants his Department has employed, for what purpose and at what total cost for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of the information technology consultants employed in financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 are given in the following table. Information for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  584
  CONSULTANCIES 1992–93 AND TASK

  JBA International PLC
  To undertake a sizing analysis of the Department's financial systems.

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)
  To undertaké a Post Implementation Review of the Department's computerised financial systems.

  Axsis
  Welsh Office Communications study: Part 1.

  DBI Associates
  To produce an Information Systems Strategy for the Welsh Office Education Department.

  NCC Consultancy
  To review the Document logging and diary facilities in the Ministerial private office.

  KPMG Management Consulting
  To undertake a study into the future of the In-House Bureau mainframe system.

  Computer Management Consultants
  Study into the Department's future Office automation requirements.

  Axsis
  Welsh office Communications study: Part 2.

  Admiral Management Services
  To undertake a review of security on the Department's computerised finance systems.

  IPL
  To undertake a Post Implementation Review of the Transport and Highways payment monitoring system.

  Praxis PLC
  To undertake a feasibility study regarding the development of a central information database for Her Majesty's School Inspectors in Wales.

  Praxis PLC
  To prepare a Project Initiation Document and Operational Requirement for an information database for Her Majesty's School Inspectors in Wales.

  DMS
  To prepare functional specification for a Management Informations System for the Department's Publicity Unit.

  Sofia and Company Limited
  Publicity Unit Management Information System development.

  Software Personnel
  Analysis of Software migration on Department's finance systems.

  SPS Limited
  Analysis of requirement—Agent Authority Audit Trail.

  Computacenter Limited
  Installation support, IT equipment and software.
  The total cost of IT consultancies in 1992–1993 was £357,822.

  Consultancies 1993–94 and Task

  Safetynet PLC
  To advise on the upgrade of the computer suite housing the Department's financial systems.

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)
  To undertake a Post Implementation Review of the Department's Personnel Management system.

  Computacenter Ltd
  Computer network software support.
  585
  JBA International Ltd
  Time Recording System for Department's Legal Branch.

  Software Personnel
  Enhancements to Department's Finance Systems.

  Software Personnel
  Analysis and programming in relation to a software upgrade for the Department's Finance Systems.

  AXSIS
  Office Automation study.

  Sofia and Company Ltd
  Publicity Unit, Management Information System.

  ICL
  DRS 6000 sizing exercise.

  KOALA Publishing
  Schedule of Ancient Monuments records.

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)
  Operational Requirement for Central database, Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (Wales).

  EASAMS Ltd
  Operational Requirement, Urban Affairs computer system.

  Software Personnel
  Grants and Subsidy payments system.

  AXSIS
  Computer Security and Support review.

  Computacenter Ltd
  Installation support for PCs, Peripherals and software.

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd
  To evaluate the need for a computerised record of manufacturing plants in Wales.

  Ernst and Young
  To advise on end of financial year procedures in relation to the Department's financial systems.

  Consultancies 1992–93 and Task

  Price Waterhouse
  To undertake a scoping study for the Market Test of Welsh office Information Technology services.

  Gower Business Systems
  To undertake a study of the possible uses of Desk Top Publishing.

  Mouncey & Partners
  To advise on the implementation of computer systems in Valuation Tribunal Offices.

  MVA Systematica
  To advise on the migration of the Department's Road Accident System from the In-House Bureau mainframe computer.

  Easams Ltd.
  To undertake a scoping study for the Valuation Tribunal integrated appeals system.
  586
  The total cost of information technology consultancies in 1993–94 was £608,550.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his estimate of the annual operating costs of local government in Wales at constant prices for the last three years, together with his estimate for the next three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The annual operating costs of local government include administration, personnel and other running expenses. Such operating costs cannot be fully identified from information held centrally. However, the available information is given in the following table. Information for future years and the 1993–94 and 1994–95 figures for revenue expenditure on administration are not yet available.

  Local authority revenue expenditure, 1994–95 prices (£ million)

  Net revenue expenditure1

  Revenue expenditure on administration2

  1991–92 outturn

  2,561·6

  361·3

  1992–93 outturn3

  2,632·2

  391·6

  1993–94 budget

  2,579·4

  —

  1994–953

  2,608·0

  —

  1All general fund revenue spending including community council precepts. No adjustments have been made for transfers of responsibility to or from local authority control—that is, the transfer out of further and higher education responsibilities in 1992 and 1993.

  2 Identifiable gross expenditure on administration, including spending on central administration—that is, personnel management—and administration costs normally accounted for within specific services—that is, education etc.

  3 Provisional.

  School Governors
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to promote the establishment of an independent body to represent school governors in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  County associations of governing bodies are being formed in various LEAs in Wales. I am sure that they will exercise a valuable representative function and act as a channel for information to and from governors. The formation of an all-Wales body would be a welcome development.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

London Docklands: Traffic Routes
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are seeking to discourage the use of the new roads and tunnels in the London docklands area by traffic which is trying to reach the M.25 and avoid the heavily congested traditional routes through the East End of London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we are not seeking to discourage the use of these roads. Motorists are free to choose whichever route best suits their journeys. Indeed, a good many are already using the Docklands highways in preference to the A.13 trunk road.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does not my noble friend feel that either open government or the Citizen's Charter might suggest that the route along these wonderful new roads is shared a little more widely by being signposted? Is he aware that some of us have stumbled on the secret of how to use these roads, enjoy whizzing between the City of London and the M.25 on mile after mile of unused dual carriageway, and feel rather ashamed at being like members of the Politburo in Moscow in the days of the Soviet Union?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not whizzing too fast because there are some cameras strategically placed on those dual carriageways. Aside from that, I suggest that if he travels on part of that road during the rush hour he will find that it is not quite as lonely as he appears to imply. The Docklands highways were built as part of our continuing commitment to the regeneration of the Docklands. That remains their primary function. But it is undoubtedly true that one of the links in particular (that with the Limehouse Tunnel) is a well-used method of skirting some of the busier parts of the A.13.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as far as this matter is concerned, the absence of signposts is characteristic of this Government, in that they simply do not know their way and have no intention of producing any signposts?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that the Government, including myself, have a very clear idea of where we are going. Furthermore, I say to him that in this case signposting is a matter for the local highways authorities and not for the Government. I am quite sure that the local authorities also know where they are going; or perhaps they do not.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is true that trunk road signposting is a matter for local authorities? I would like to add my voice in support of having better signposting on that route. On the M.11 there is no signposting for quite a long stretch. I thought that I was very lucky to make it when I used that road for the first time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, signposting on trunk roads is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The road which my noble friend is asking about is not a trunk road. The A.13 trunk road is signposted, but as we all know from our own experience, and that of others, motorists are very good at finding a quicker way to make their journeys, but then they find that many other motorists have also discovered that quicker way.

Palace of Westminster: Working Hours
2.41 p.m.
Lord Northbourneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the International Year of the Family to make the facilities and working hours of the Palace of Westminster more friendly to those who work in the House and also want to be good parents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, this House tries to accommodate the needs of its staff both by its own policies and by following good practices adopted by government departments. The House already operates paid and unpaid maternity leave, flexible working patterns and a child care voucher scheme.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. I feel that the Question goes a good deal wider. Does he accept that time enjoyed together within the family is a very important aspect of parenting and also important in consolidating the stability of parental relationships? Does he agree that Parliament should be setting a good example to other employers in facilitating parents spending time with their children between school and bedtime rather than doing exactly the opposite?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, the Leader of the House, has set up a group under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham. Its terms of reference are to consider the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect the sittings of the House. I understand that the group first met on 21st March and will report by July. We shall study its report very carefully.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, has the Westminster City Council social services department approached the Officers of this House, and will it perhaps approach our committee? Under the Children Act 1989 there is a duty to provide for all children up to the age of eight years whose parents are out at work.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend with any detail. Perhaps it would be helpful if I point out to her that we have a child care voucher system which is currently used by 17 members of the staff. It is a flexible system; the value of each voucher can be tailored to what an employer can afford. It is not as expensive as a crèche, so lower-paid workers can make use of it. It is available for under school-age children and for school-age children during the holidays. It is worth £6 a day, and it is taxable. One voucher is allowed per family. The House of Lords Finance and Staff Sub-Committee introduced the scheme in May 1993.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Question also includes those Members of your Lordships' House who sit in the Chamber, so I shall leave that part of it aside.
A noble Lord: Well, we work!
Baroness Nicol: Does the Minister agree that it would be greatly to the benefit of all who work in the House if noble Lords were to make their speeches a good deal shorter so that we could all go home at a reasonable hour?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a useful suggestion. Perhaps I might suggest that noble Lords opposite cut down the number of amendments that they table to Bills—particularly to mine tomorrow—so that we can all go home earlier.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that this Question has been asked literally times without number since the last war? If he will look into this and see how often the Question has been asked, he might discover whether there has been any variety in the Answers that can be given. I do not think that there is. Nobody ever seems able to do anything about it, and I do not suppose that they ever will.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should point out that another place has produced the Jopling Report. I understand that my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council continues to seek agreement on a balanced package of measures to put before another place. I know that he is concerned that whatever is proposed should be on an agreed basis and should take account of the needs of the Government, the Opposition and individual Back-Benchers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the 10 years or so in which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have been trying to get provision of a family room for the use of Members' spouses and their children? I have not yet achieved that; but are we any nearer to providing it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is not for me to answer on behalf of the Government. It is a matter for the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. I shall certainly draw those remarks to the attention of the Chairman of Committees.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the circumstances of another place and of your
188
Lordships' House are quite different, and that it would be wrong for us to have to accept what is considered to be right in another place? Is my noble friend also aware that Members of both Houses are better Members of both Houses to the extent that they are able to maintain contact with the world at large?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not have the experience of my noble friend, who was a Member of another place. He did the country a great favour when he became a Member of this House and relinquished his seat in another place for the Prime Minister. The group that is considering this matter in your Lordships' House will do so on a very different basis from the group in another place. We shall make our decision on how we feel that this House should operate in the future.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend is doubtless aware that one of the most helpful arrangements for families is the job-sharing scheme which the Government instituted some years ago. Can my noble friend tell the House how many members of staff avail themselves of the job-sharing scheme and, if he is able to do that, what the increase has been over the past five years?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what I can tell my noble friend is that there are 314 staff, of whom 176 are women. The policy of the House is to try to accommodate particular demands by adjusting hours, allowing staff to work part-time and through job sharing. There are a number of examples of job sharing and of hours of work being adjusted to take account of individual needs in relation to child minding. I do not have the figures for which my noble friend asked; but if they are available, I shall write to her with them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while this House should, of course, be quite different from the other, perhaps I may ask this question. Does my noble friend remember that when the late Mr. Richard Crossman, in the 1960s, introduced morning sittings in the other place, it was unsuccessful because Members of the other place insisted on continuing debates until the media closed down, which was at about midnight, and the Government rightly felt that they could not gag them by applying the closure?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point which gives one more view of the debate that we shall have to have in your Lordships' House once the group's report has been received.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest—I do not really like doing this—as both my parents were Members of another place and were subsequently both Members of this House. Does my noble friend agree that I have not suffered unduly?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has not suffered unduly. What is more, it enabled him to become at one stage a distinguished Deputy Chief Whip in this House.

Health and Safety Law: Crown Immunity
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to remove Crown immunity from prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and regulations made under that Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans to change the current position, which is that Crown bodies are required to comply with health and safety legislation and HSE inspectors seek to ensure that the law is complied with and that Crown employers meet standards of good practice found elsewhere. The HSE is considering the implications of removing Crown immunity from prosecution under health and safety legislation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but is the Minister aware that there is plenty of evidence that some Crown bodies do not comply with the health and safety regulations until Crown immunity is removed from them; for example, the notorious Stanley Royd Hospital and others? Instead of workers being protected by health and safety regulations, management flouts the regulations and is protected by Crown immunity. That should be abolished by the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is our policy that Crown immunity should not lead to standards of health and safety in Crown premises lower than those applying elsewhere. Health and safety legislation already bites fully on the Crown and allows for inspection and enforcement through Crown notices. As I said, the HSE is currently examining the case for removing Crown immunity and the costs and benefits associated with such a removal, but I have to say that it is not one of its highest priorities.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I ask this question merely because I want the information, which I ought to know. How far does Crown immunity apply in the public service? Does it apply, for instance, to quangos and all health service institutions? How far down the ladder of service does it apply? Does it apply, for instance, to an employee of the Crown, however lowly, who flouts the health and safety regulations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer my noble and learned friend with the precision that he would like. However, I can say that quangos, health authorities and next step agencies such as the Benefits Agency of the DSS are also covered by Crown immunity. The important point to get over, as I made clear in my first supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is that it is our policy that Crown immunity should not lead to lower standards of health
190
and safety. There are provisions for Crown improvement notices and prohibition notices. There is also a provision for formally censoring Crown employers at a fairly senior level for non-compliance.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in view of the Minister' s recent remarks on this Question, will Her Majesty 's Government re-examine the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons with a view to implementing his health and safety regulations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, prisons are another matter, but I shall have a look at the question asked by the noble Lord, and I shall write to him or arrange for an appropriate colleague to write to him.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with regard to my noble and learned friend's question about quangos, is my noble friend aware that when, some 20 years ago, I was director of an industrial training board, which was unquestionably a quango, we did not have the protection of Crown immunity? I suspect that on the whole quangos do not have it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assistance in this matter. I shall look to the precise line where Crown immunity is drawn. It might be helpful if I wrote to my noble friend or my noble and learned friend and placed a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us would take him to task for saying that the Government's policy does not lead to a lowering of standards? My noble friend Lord Ashley did well to refer to the Stanley Royd Hospital in West Yorkshire, where a number of elderly people died of food poisoning in the most appalling circumstances. That was related very much to the fact that immunity was enjoyed by that hospital. Some time ago at the Dispatch Box the Minister said that the protection of employees of the Palace of Westminster under the health and safety legislation, which is what the Question is about, was under serious—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, some time ago the Minister was questioned about employees in the Palace of Westminster. He gave an undertaking that the matter was under serious consideration. Is he now saying that the consideration is not so serious, because surely the people who work in the Palace are entitled to just as much protection as is afforded to people who work outside it? It is about time the Government met their requests.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Question is not about health and safety in the Palace, which is another matter, because it is not covered by Crown immunity but by the application of parliamentary privilege. As the noble Lord will remember, there was a Question about that some time ago, and another one two years earlier. When answering for the Government, my noble friend Lord

191
Ullswater gave a commitment that that immunity resulting from parliamentary privilege would be removed at the first suitable legislative opportunity.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the point I am making is that the Minister referred two years ago to the first suitable opportunity. It is not the earliest opportunity if we have to wait that long is it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there has not been an opportunity since then.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, would not a more accurate answer to the perceptive question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, be that many tens of thousands of workers are covered by Crown immunity and are therefore not protected fully by the health and safety regulations? If that is not a high priority for the Government, why is it that the Home Office Review Body has recommended lifting Crown immunity from fire precautions legislation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord did not listen to my first Answer. I was trying to make it clear that health and safety legislation bites fully on the Crown. It also allows for Crown inspection and enforcement procedures. There are also procedures, as I made clear, for formally censoring Crown employers at a fairly senior level. In other words, we have more or less everything except for prosecution. I then went on to say that the HSE is examining the costs and benefits of removing that immunity. There is little point in removing that immunity if it does not improve the position and merely imposes greater costs.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but I did listen to the first Answer. I found it unsatisfactory, because the Minister is neglecting and ignoring clear evidence of the bad effects of Crown immunity.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, that is something we are examining. One has to be clear that the benefits of removing Crown immunity are greater than the costs of retaining it. The important point is to have the best possible health and safety systems and practice. I am satisfied that this country has a pretty good health and safety record, but obviously, if the removal of Crown immunity could improve it without imposing greater costs, then that is the line that we would go down.

Organophosphate Exposure: NHS Treatment
2.57 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that patients who believe they are suffering from the effects of exposure to organophosphates are being properly treated by the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My
192
Lords, clinicians treat patients to the best of their ability, using their own clinical judgment. In the NHS we investigate any formal complaints brought to our attention, including any from patients who believe that they are suffering from exposure to organophosphates.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Does she recall that on 4th October last year I wrote in confidence to the Secretary of State for Health asking her to investigate the activities of the National Poisons Unit at Guy's Hospital? I quoted specifically the cases of Mrs. Annette Griffin and Mrs. Barbara Lawson. Both of those ladies were told by the National Poisons Unit that, yes, they were suffering from organophosphate poisoning. When it was discovered that they worked for a health authority, the director of the National Poisons Unit called a meeting of all the physicians responsible for those two ladies in Cheshire and withdrew from their files any reference to organophosphate poisoning. One of the ladies was twice pregnant while working for the health authority. She is worried about the health of her children. They can get no help whatsoever—
Noble Lords: Question!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have asked a question.
A noble Lord: Too long
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister please explain why I have had no full reply to my letter of 4th October?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of the letter that the noble Countess sent to the Secretary of State. She will remember that we met officials on 25th November to discuss her concerns on this issue. Since that time officials in the department have met the director of the National Poisons Unit, and discussed in particular her concerns about the questionnaire. I understand that it is now no longer used.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the gap between what patients believe and the reality is often very wide indeed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right; that is often the case. In this area we are in some difficulty because as far as I am aware there have been no cases where it has been conclusively proved that the symptoms can be attributable only to the proper use of OP sheep dips.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister but perhaps I may say to her noble friend that both cases were well documented and there were witnesses at the meetings. There is another case of a man in the Isle of Wight who was told by Guy's National Poisons Unit, "We cannot tell you at the moment whether you are suffering from organophosphate poisoning. We will tell you in two years". Is the Minister aware that the questionnaire about which I asked was described by a senior consultant psychiatrist in London as being designed to discredit patients? Will

193
the Minister ensure that help is given to discount any organic cause of illness before psychiatric reasons are given for it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was not aware of the particular comment that the noble Countess gave on that questionnaire. I am sure she will be relieved to know that it has now been withdrawn. With regard to patients who believe that they are suffering from exposure to organophosphates, it is up to GPs and clinicians working in hospitals to exercise their clinical judgment and to treat them as best they can. Where patients feel aggrieved we have a complaints procedure.

Industry and the Environment
3.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to industry's responsibilities towards the environment, and in particular to the role of technological advances in improving environmental practice and the quality of life; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I will allow for the traditional moment during which certain noble Lords who are not interested in the debate wish to leave the Chamber.
We have moved this Motion because, in our view, first, there is a growing realisation that the environmental problems of our country and the world are, and indeed should he, at the centre of debate about national and international business activity. Secondly, we believe that the free market, which for many years has been so beloved by noble Lords opposite, will by itself no longer be able to cope with those problems. There must be a much closer relationship between government and the corporate sector if those problems are to be resolved. Thirdly, we believe that there are opportunities for British business to exploit in what I might call the environmental sector which, if we are successful, will bring great benefits in terms of revenue to this country and to employment, and, by extension, to our quality of life. For those three reasons, our Motion appears on the Order Paper.
I hope that there is little argument about the first proposition. The days when we could consider industry in purely profit and loss terms, without also considering environmental side effects, are over. The experience of the environmental desert in Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism has had its effect. Furthermore, even if after that there are doubts about the political awareness of the environmental effects of uncontrolled industrial activity, any doubter needs only to look at the literature, both academic and governmental, that has developed during the past few years.
Any remaining doubters might then look at the European Community Green Paper, issued in the late 1980s, which was analysed and commented upon by your Lordships' Select Committee in a report published in March last year. The House has also seen reports on the implementation and enforcement of EC environmental legislation and on the fifth environmental action programme. Furthermore, and I hope finally for the
194
doubters, there have been any number of reports by other bodies, culminating in the recent government post-Rio White Papers and the "Marrakesh Declaration" that was issued last week by the signatories to the GATT Uruguay Round, which specifically emphasised the importance of further work on the impact of international trade on the environment, in particular on third world countries.
There is a further dimension. It is no longer possible to overlook the ever more critical role of the consuming public. And from this further questions arise, in particular about information that could and should be available to the consumer for consumer protection. It is not just a matter of 100,000 or so inhabitants of Worcester being deprived of drinking water by an apparent leakage of solvent from a chemical plant. Plainly, that is illegal without a special permit. What is of greater anxiety is that although discharges are monitored it is a criminal offence to disclose information from the records so obtained without the consent of the water company, making it illegal to pass on or publicise findings other than under the privilege of a court. Perhaps I may take one admittedly rather unpleasant example. The effect on rats of drinking sewage-contaminated water has been studied for eight years. However, the results were deemed "unsuitable for publication". More and more the consumer is demanding access to this kind of information and, as usual, the consumer is right.
The questions I wish to ask, and to which I wish to offer a response, are as follows. Are we doing enough to alert industry across the whole spectrum to its responsibilities towards the environment? Are we enforcing the higher standards of environmental practice that those heightened responsibilities entail?
In looking at those two questions, perhaps I may first look at some of the positive sides. It is not my purpose to claim that everything is gloomy. The responsible care initiative of the Chemical Industries Association has been widely commented upon with approval, as has the introduction of British Standard 7750 on environmental management systems. The CBI has established a cross-sectoral Environment Business Forum, which I believe to be a leader in its field. It is widely praised. Undoubtedly, those are matters for congratulation.
However, the Environment Business Forum of the CBI—just to take that example—for all its worthy aims has only 250 members out of 20,000 businesses in the United Kingdom employing more than 200 workers. Furthermore, some 95 per cent. of all businesses in the United Kingdom employ fewer than 50 people. As far as I know, there are no umbrella bodies for them in respect of environmental matters. The Federation of Small Businesses is silent on the matter. Therefore, it can hardly be said that within industry itself the voluntary campaign has got very far, however worthy—and I wish to stress that—it may be.
The problem is quite obvious. Company environmental action plans, or whatever one likes to call them, can be expensive. They can be expensive to set up and expensive to implement. Funds going to support them come out of profits and even dividends. It is all too easy for a company to plead that its aim is to maximise the

195
return to its shareholders—and that is the beginning and the end of it. Indeed, directors of companies of such a nature tend to go on, "We believe in a free market in which we are able to operate in whatever way we wish provided it is within the law. The City demands no less".
Here, of course, I come on to the more political matters. Let me make the statement quite plainly. It is our argument that companies are not free-standing entities operating in a kind of social vacuum but are part of society itself. If that sounds "corporatist"—a dirty word, as your Lordships will remember, during the 1980s—I am not ashamed of that in the least. It means that the Government must take the lead in persuading the corporate sector, in so far as the voluntary effort —and I emphasise that expression—is inadequate, to embark on the environmental action plans which society demands.
If that has to be enforced through a reporting mechanism on environmental practice built into the Companies Acts, then so be it. But if it comes to that, and I know not whether it will, I would add one note of caution. There is one area where we have to be particularly careful; that is, the small business sector. As our own European Communities Committee pointed out last year, small businesses need particular help. Any environmental legislation needs to be translated into a form which is easily understood by small businesses, and does not impose too heavy a burden on them.
At this point in the argument about the centrality of the environmental factor to the future of industry I would assert that it is possible, by close co-operation between government and industry—much closer co-operation than we have had under this Government —to solve what I would call the domestic problem. But we are a long way from solving the international problem. It may well be that the recently completed Uruguay Round (assuming that the treaty is ratified in all countries) however welcome it is in other respects could actually work towards damaging the environment. The new treaty could be used to challenge international environmental agreements such as the Montreal Protocol or the Rio conventions. Quite bluntly, that must not be allowed to happen.
Our party has put forward proposals for the GATT working party on trade and environment which would meet those concerns. We believe not only that that is a matter of urgency—the GATT working party should report within a year—but we believe also that the GATT treaty itself should allow for states to take action to protect their own or the common environment, and that such action can be applied to processes which damage the environment, as well as the end products.
I realise that up to now what I have said might be seen as somewhat on the negative side. Critics may say that I am asking for too much regulation: too much emphasis on the green and not enough on the necessity to create the growing wealth that we accept—and I accept it without compromise —is necessary to support a better environment. So I would like to turn now, if your Lordships will allow me, to the positive opportunities which high environmental standards offer
196
us; in other words, to the technological advances to which my Motion refers. In fact, as your Lordships will be aware, there are technologies in existence already which, if properly harnessed, could create thousands of jobs—simple ones like energy efficiency, the replacement of lead piping, or land restoration projects; very simple, easy technologies. But the more exciting technologies are still developing. Pollution abatement will, in the short and, indeed, the medium term, constitute the larger part of the environmental industry.
The global market for pollution abatement technologies is already worth some 200 billion dollars, and by the end of the decade it is variously estimated to be worth between 300 and 600 billion dollars. This, I need hardly say to your Lordships, is very big business indeed—and very lucrative.
Sadly, the record of the United Kingdom is in this, as in so many other things, rather depressing. We are, to put it in a nutshell, falling badly behind. In air pollution equipment, for instance, our exports in the early 1980s were eight times our imports; now we are net importers. In sewage handling equipment, 15 years ago we exported more than all other European countries; again, we are now net importers. In total market terms, for all pollution abatement equipment, 50 per cent. of the market is shared between Germany, the United States and Japan. The United Kingdom market share is negligible.
Whatever the short term about pollution abatement, the greatest opportunities in the future lie in the development of what are called "clean technologies". Let me give your Lordships the DTI definition of what is meant. It is:
"technologies which focus on reducing demand for raw materials and energy and on the prevention as distinct from the treatment of pollution and wastes".
That is a complicated definition. Let me give one example: the ozone-friendly fridge. Conventional fridges use CFCs as coolants and in the insulation. CFCs are to be phased out under the Montreal Protocol. The commercial opportunities for the manufacturer who develops and markets a fridge that does not rely on CFCs are quite obviously enormous. What has happened? The German Government stepped in and there are now two German companies making hydrocarbon fridges which are totally ozone-friendly and highly efficient—German companies, my Lords.
And this example is only one among many. In every sector where there is a polluter—motor car, aeroplane, domestic heating and so on—in every sector there is a similar story to tell. But, alas—and I have to say this to the Minister—it does appear that the United Kingdom is falling behind in almost every sector.
So my last question is: what could or should government be doing to rectify the situation? In answering that question I think we should first look at what industry itself wants. It is no good me, from this Dispatch Box, or any other noble Lord prescribing any remedy unless it is what is required by industry.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that compared with Germany, British industry is a deliberate polluter?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for asking me to clarify what I said. The answer is, no. I am not saying that we are more deliberately polluting than any other country or company in the world. What I am saying is that, in trying to develop industries which will clear up that pollution (technologies that will deal with the pollution) we are behind the others. That is the argument that I am advancing. If I may say so, it is an argument which is proved by the facts. Just to digress for a moment, because the noble Lord has provoked me into this, I think that we are quite good at services but I do not think we are very good at manufacturing—my noble friend says "anything"—pollution abatement equipment. I believe that we have a big problem.
What does industry want? Here I quote from a recent survey of the environmental technology industry carried out by Environmental Policy Consultants. It found that 68 per cent. of respondents thought that there was not enough government support for their sector and that only 7 per cent. thought that it was enough. But, of course, they would say that wouldn't they? What is much more surprising —and, in my mind, more interesting—is that when asked what were the main barriers to growth in their business, nearly half replied "lack of government incentives for investment", and a third cited weak legislation and enforcement. When asked what factors improved sales, the majority cited United Kingdom and European Community legislation.
The answer, therefore, is becoming clear. Higher regulatory standards can be, in the technical term, "technology forcing"; in other words, regulation produces the advances in environmental technologies to generate the wealth, the jobs and—dare I say it?—the quality of life that we are all looking for. As confirmation of what I am saying, I need to look no further than paragraph 51 of the report of your Lordships' European Communities Committee, to which I referred earlier, which says:
"Early adoption of strict environmental standards can give `first mover' advantages".
That early adoption of strict environmental standards is the responsibility of government—not random deregulation.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could produce some examples of where he thinks our environmental record is lacking in the United Kingdom. It would certainly be most helpful in order to speed the debate along.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am in no hurry because there is no time limit. However, if the noble Lord would like to read the report of his own—that is of our own—European Communities Committee he will see many examples from the evidence of where, in the view of the evidence submitted and of your Lordships' committee, we are falling behind. We are falling behind particularly in the aspect which I just mentioned where Japan and Germany were cited in that report as having applied strict regulatory standards which gave them
198
"first mover" status. They developed the technology. If the noble Lord would like to send for a copy of the report, he will be able to read that in black and white.
I believe that that proves the case. It is not a question of random deregulation that the Government are moving forward with. The responsibility of government is to regulate properly. The responsibility of industry is to follow-up with ingenuity and commercial acumen in precisely those markets which regulation generates. That is what we should be looking for, and that, I hope, is what we will get. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is quite right to raise this issue. I fully agree with his reasons for doing so. In his normal vigorous style, the noble Lord has stimulated what I am sure will be a most interesting debate. I am pleased that the noble Lord referred to the report of Sub-Committee B of the European committee because I have some connection with it. It was most unfortunate that, due to pressure of other parliamentary business, we did not have the occasion to debate it. However, we now have that opportunity. I should like to add to some of the comments made by the noble Lord on that report.
I should, first, remind the House that the report was drafted in response to a Commission document which I found to be very positive. It was a document which sought to demonstrate that industrial competitiveness and the protection of the environment could go together; in other words, that protecting the environment in industry was not necessarily harmful and that it could lead to positive results. We found that there was much substance in that contention, although in some aspects of environmental protection there were undoubtedly substantial costs which could not be compensated for.
The noble Lord referred to the "prime mover" situation which we emphasised a good deal. We found as the noble Lord indicated; namely, that in those countries—notably Germany and Japan—where at an early stage they applied strict environmental controls, that stimulated the response from industry to produce the machinery, the equipment and the processes to deal with the situation. In my own sector (the coal sector) the treatment of sulphur emissions was a case in point. Unfortunately, in this country we delayed considerably before we accepted the proposition that there were undue SO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, we did not subscribe to the view that special scrubbing processes should be adopted and developed, whereas in Germany they went into it straightaway. The equipment now used in Britain in that sector has very largely to be imported. That is an illustration of the way in which, in some instances, we have fallen behind.
I was impressed with the document which the DTI issued earlier this year entitled The European Environmental Industry—Succeeding in the Changing Global Markets. I found it to be a very practical document. It analyses the various sectors in the new environmental market and indicates where the leading exporters and competitors are and what might be done from this country. It is a helpful and practical approach to the issue.

199
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, we are extremely good on consultancy services. When preparing for this debate, I was surprised to learn that there are no fewer than 700 firms in this country which provide an environmental consultancy service. They are almost falling over one another. Fortunately, they do not concentrate only on British industry; some of them operate very successfully abroad. Therefore, we lead in that area.
Another area in which I believe we lead is in the treatment of water generally and of water effluents. The water companies are to be congratulated on the initiative that they have taken in that respect. However, those successes are relatively few. Much more needs to be done. I hope that it will be stimulated by the DTI document to which I referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the issue of the degree to which there should be regulation and the degree to which there should be voluntary action. That is an issue at which we looked carefully in the report. My opinion is that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 just about lays down as much regulation as we could reasonably cope with. Some would feel that it even goes too far. I remind your Lordships that it introduced three fundamental concepts: the concept of integrated pollution control; the concept of the duty of care, particularly in the disposal of waste; and the famous BATNEEC concept; that is, the need to adopt the best available technology not entailing excessive cost.
I think that those are all good concepts. The trouble with the last, however, is that it is capable of a wide interpretation. I am not surprised that at an early stage the Government had to issue guidelines on the subject. What is the best available technology not involving excessive cost? The concept of excessive cost is something which is very subjective. One company's excessive costs could be very different from those of another. I think that this imposes a particular role on the regulators, and on the people—in this case the pollution inspectors—who have to apply these regulations. Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not so much that there should be more regulatory legislation, but that we should make sure that the legislation is properly and effectively applied. I think that this is an area of importance not only here but also, almost more importantly, in some member countries of the Community where they are pretty lax in their application of the regulations.
I am a great believer in having legislation and regulation buttressed by voluntary action because voluntary action can take the whole issue much further and generate much more enthusiasm. The noble Lord referred to some aspects of this. He was right to refer to the responsible care initiative of the chemical industry. The Chemical Industries Association described this to us in our sub-committee and I was very impressed. There were two noticeable points of interest: first, that it started here but, secondly, that it has spread to a large number of countries and now 20 major countries have adopted the system. It is backed by codes on employees' safety; pollution protection; what is called "product
200
stewardship", which is a lifetime analysis of products; community awareness and emergency response. I am glad to say that the CIA—I would point out to avoid confusion that that is the Chemical Industries Association—has decided that this should be a condition of membership. Therefore it has taken pretty strong action and it should be congratulated on that, particularly as the action has been taken in a sector where the problem of pollution has been very noticeable.
The noble Lord referred to the CBI's initiative and I agree that there are not many companies yet who have adopted it, but it is all there and I know that the CBI is pressing ahead very hard. Again I think that the British Standards Institute is to be congratulated on the major standards which it has introduced in recent years, particularly the well known BS 5750 which deals with quality systems and which it has now followed up with the environmental management standard 7750 to which the noble Lord referred. I am glad to note that that standard is now to be incorporated as an international standard. That is an area, again, in which we have shown a successful initiative.
But apart from these general initiatives of a voluntary nature I have found that there is a large and growing number of companies who are taking their own initiatives. The concept of environmental management is spreading and I was struck in particular with what has been done by the National Westminster Bank. One does not normally associate a banking institution with environmental concern, but it has taken the matter seriously and it has worked hard to create an environmental awareness within its group. What has interested me particularly is that it has sought to influence its suppliers and its customers, particularly small firms.
The noble Lord referred to the problem of small firms. Small firms have a great difficulty in the first place in understanding the environmental legislation and then in actually carrying it out and surviving having done so; they need a great deal of help. We suggested in our report that environmental legislation should have special sections relating to small firms and that existing legislation should be explained in terms which could be reasonably applied to small firms. What I am glad to see in connection with the initiative by the National Westminster Bank is that it has put itself out to help its small firm customers in this area. I think that is much to be commended.
The noble Lord referred to some aspects of environmental improvement which can be entirely beneficial and I am personally involved in one; namely energy efficiency. I am associated with a company which is concerned with energy management and I can say that as a result of our operations in the past year we have reduced CO2 emissions to the tune of 85,000 tonnes. That is quite a lot of CO2 which is not going into the atmosphere. Your Lordships may be interested in specific cases because this is an area of environmental improvement which brings undoubted benefit—not a net cost, but a net benefit. I wish to refer to the case of a group of 50 hotels where the application of energy management principles has led to a saving in energy of

201
15 per cent., to an annual financial saving of £170,000 a year compared with what the group was spending before, and it has reduced the group's CO2 emissions by 2,500 tonnes per annum. That is something which is in every respect desirable.
I give another illustration of 25 blocks of flats, mainly in central London. The energy saving in this case was 29 per cent. and the financial saving was £400,000 per annum. The reduction in CO2 emissions was 5,000 tonnes per annum. I was very glad to see, in the third report of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment, that special emphasis was put on energy efficiency as contributing to the improved environment.
To sum up, I would like to make three points. First, I think there is plenty of evidence now to suggest that industry is well aware of its environmental responsibility. There have been notable voluntary initiatives which have been mentioned. Of course more needs to be done and the noble Lord was quite right there. Secondly, much environmental action can be of considerable benefit in terms of cost and efficiency. I gave the example of improved energy efficiency and there are others. Thirdly—this is where I think that we are probably weakest and I share the view of the noble Lord on this—we need to develop what has been described as "prime mover" initiatives. In other words, from now on we should take a lead in anticipating environmental developments rather than being drawn along, in some cases reluctantly, by them. I think that in this way we could not only improve environmental practice at home, but we could also improve our balance of payments, and above all we could assist emerging economies who need this kind of help and are unable to develop it themselves.
3.39 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for raising this important and timely subject. The Government published their Agenda 21 strategies about three months ago and more recently they have issued the annual report required for next month's meeting of the UN's Commission for Sustainable Development in New York where environment ministers from all over the world will be reviewing progress on a wide range of issues. These events and issues are not insignificant. They ultimately affect us all, as they will also ultimately affect future generations; hence the relevance of the noble Lord's carefully focused debate today.
Many of industry's most fundamental responsibilities to the environment are well recognised in the UK through such policy concepts as the three mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; namely, integrated pollution control, the duty of care and BATNEEC. There are also BPEO (the best practical environmental options), environmental assessments, eco-audit and management systems, and the development of British Standard 7750, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned. This basic framework of environmental responsibility is vital. That so much of it is already established is an achievement of policy and practice which is, justifiably, acknowledged by a wide range of interests.
202
Few would deny that much more remains to be done and that the decisions which lie ahead may well be difficult. However, if one looks at the progress of some of our neighbours and competitors one realises why many of them currently credit us with developing a commitment to the environment by industry which is coherent, sensible and largely cost-effective. I have had first-hand experience of that external assessment recently. Within the past few weeks I have been to a conference in Paris on waste management and attended a committee in Geneva studying the Agenda 21 issues. At both events impartial critics gave UK policy fairly good marks for quality and credibility.
That deserves to be pointed out, not so much for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister who, being a naturally modest man, I would hate to embarrass, but because if we can identify those ingredients which can produce coherent and credible policies, and promote those ingredients, we have a better chance of achieving a good deal more.
Undoubtedly one of the successes in this country, which we must continue to promote and which has attracted attention elsewhere, is the fundamental contribution made towards sustainable practices when industry and government develop their environmental responsibilities together as a team. It is through the co-ordination of their respective responsibilities and skills, and liaison on the assessment of problems, objectives and methods that sustainability can best be delivered. Environmental policies which are neither commercially viable nor operationally practical are unlikely to be sustainable. Equally unsustainable are policies which are driven purely by political sentiment rather than by the realities of economic and environmental cost-benefit analysis, life cycle analysis or a sound scientific base.
To take an example, the waste recycling policies of countries such as New Zealand, Germany and Canada illustrate how policies based on sentiment and assumption rather than on viability and analysis can produce both an economic mess and net environmental penalties which are sometimes worse than the very penalties that they were seeking to mitigate. In their headlong rush into prescriptive policies those governments failed to assess or consult on the complexities and practicalities involved. For example, they failed to assess the true cost of separating out and collecting plastics, given that they comprise just 8 per cent. by weight of municipal waste streams. They failed to appreciate that a plastic bottle represents the equivalent of just one seventh of a car mile in energy terms. That has significant implications for the environmental viability in terms of resource use and emissions of some recycling schemes given the transport and reprocessing costs involved. It may be better environmentally to landfill that plastic bottle than to recycle it. In pursuing those famous policies governments failed to check with industry whether there was even a market for what was being collected. That has produced a range of economic and environmental problems way beyond those countries' domestic market.
Turning to recycling in the UK, one will find a significantly different approach being pursued. Here the,

203
Government identified the need for action but then invited the relevant industrial sectors, in the shape of producer responsibility groups, to propose solutions. By asking industry to formulate its own analysis and choice of sustainable policies one effectively gives it considerable responsibility for delivering results. This is not a case of the Government seeking to avoid environmental responsibilities which should be their own. Government can and must identify problems and set standards. It is more a case of responsibility being shrewdly co-ordinated to reflect the inherent skills and abilities and incentives which are available in the market place.
In terms of the detail required for more sustainable industrial practices, for instance, it is industry which has an intimate understanding of the circumstances in which environmental improvements are sought. It is industry which has the greatest vested interest and the greatest experience of pursuing accurate analysis and cost-effective solutions. It is industry which has realised that environmental innovation can contribute to profit and survival. To paraphrase Frances Cairncross, it is industry's inventive energy which governments must seek to harness for the sake of the environment. The UK Government have been quicker than many to grasp those truths and to expand industry's responsibilities to the environment so that they include the analysis, formulation and delivery of appropriate policies.
There is one further aspect of this whole question which needs to be addressed. The general success of the commitment of industry to the environment may owe much to industry's involvement in and government devolvement of policy making. However, it also relies at critical junctures on governments' willingness to step in rather than to stand back. That is especially the case where necessary improvements in practice are temporarily or fundamentally unsustainable or unachievable if left to the private sector alone, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put it, where the voluntary effort is inadequate.
Governments can and do—and this Government certainly do —sponsor research where appropriate. They can revise specification standards where appropriate. Governments can issue credits, tax allowances and loans on appropriate equipment. They can reduce sales tax on appropriate goods. Governments can lead by example and use their own considerable purchasing power to create the right markets for the right goods. In the UK, for instance, national and local government authorities purchase half the extracted aggregates every year. That is considerable purchasing power, which can be used for environmental gain. They are also major purchasers of paper, another industry which needs environmental improvements.
In addition, governments should publicise successful and innovatory techniques. The motor trade is an example. There is a very good new technique which few people know about. Those who do know about it are unlikely to broadcast it because it is commercially profitable. In this country alone millions of tonnes of waste motor oil are generated every year. It takes just one litre of that oil, if carelessly dumped, to pollute one
204
million litres of water. Yet too few people know that waste motor oil can be profitably recycled to produce fuel oil for power stations and furnaces. It also results in reduced sulphur dioxide emissions compared with the traditional heavier fuels.
With reference to the second aspect of the debate relating to technological advances, the active participation of government in promoting or enabling improved technologies to secure better practices can be essential. My noble friend's department has done fairly well. I welcome the new DTI project to encourage innovation in environmental performance which is to be launched this summer under the title The Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. It is designed to disseminate information on best practice in clean technologies.
I also welcome waste minimisation schemes such as the DTI's Aire and Calder project which has saved participating companies some £2 million in two years, at the same time reducing their water use and pollution. I believe that there is a similar Merseyside project called Project Catalyst for which similar savings are projected.
I especially welcome the philosophy behind the non-fossil fuel orders and their Scottish equivalent, the SRO. They enable young technologies which show potential in terms of environmentally sensitive energy generation to gain market access. Such enabling mechanisms can stimulate commercially promising and environmentally preferable technologies, helping them to become competitive and free-standing. They can be the trigger and incentive for substantial private sector investment in the UK market, both by our own industries and in terms of inward investment from overseas companies. That last point should not be underestimated. Attracting industrial expertise and investment from elsewhere can benefit both our environment and employment.
As a footnote to the non-fossil fuel order issue, it is always worth remembering that non-fossil fuel orders cover a wide range of technologies and generation sources. Your Lordships may have seen the recent publicity relating to the 25 million tyres which are scrapped in this country each year. We are now burning approximately one quarter of them to produce electricity.
We have also set up the world's first scheme for the generation of electricity from chicken litter. I believe that two projects exist. Poultry litter spread locally has caused environmental problems and there have been worries about nitrate in the water supplies, about methane, and about salmonella entering the food chain. Now, thanks to non-fossil fuel orders, that waste is being used not once, to generate electricity, but twice. After electricity generation the resulting ash, which at that stage is harmless, is sold to farmers. It is high in potash and phosphates. I believe that governments must inspire and guide with such information.
Could the Government be doing more? Yes, I believe that they probably could. There may always be technologies lurking in the private sector which need to get off the ground but are having difficulties. Perhaps the most notable of those "victims", as it were, relates to the technology and infrastructure developed in the

205
United Kingdom by British Gas for natural gas vehicles. I cannot understand why that technology has not received more help. The potential is there but the reality is not, because the level of excise duty levied on natural gas as a vehicle fuel is currently four times the levy set for petrol and diesel. That defies logic. Natural gas is one of the cleanest fossil fuels available. As a vehicle fuel it is virtually free of lead, sulphur, particulates and the hydrocarbons which cause pollution at street level. Its CO2 emissions are 30 per cent. lower, which is relevant to our international obligations. The CO levels are 70 per cent. lower than those of petrol vehicles. Yet despite the environmental advantages of natural gas as a fuel for vehicles, I understand that Treasury policy favours petrol and diesel. If the duty on gas as a vehicle fuel is reduced to the EC minimum—that is the level at which petrol and diesel are treated in this country—it could become more competitive and begin to develop its market potential. That is an exception, but it is an example of government policy hindering a technological advance which would otherwise improve the quality of our life.
In conclusion, I believe that across the board the UK has made good progress on these issues. Industry's responsibilities to the environment are well established in a strong framework of basic responsibilities. Those responsibilities have been expanded to improve access to policy formulation, analysis and the delivery of objectives set at a national level. Where that has occurred, it has worked well. I know from first hand experience that that response is admired by other countries. Therefore, Government must continue to encourage that involvement, and continue their own strategic involvement in specific areas. To date the issue has had a good record; long may that continue. At present we all benefit from a good start to the Agenda 21 process.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to develop this important subject at this point. I wish to develop two strands from his rather complex presentation. The first relates to the commitment of industry generally to address environmental problems associated with its own operations—and I include in that the agriculture and fishery industries, both of which have important impacts on the environment—and to keep us informed about what it is doing.
My second strand refers to research and development to which my noble friend referred, and the manufacture of the technology necessary to effect environmental improvements and to take British innovation abroad, not only to the industrial but also to the developing world.
Those of us with environmental interests receive a considerable number of documents drawing attention to efforts being made by various industries to meet environmental considerations during or after their operations. Yet in the CBI News published only this week, the director general finds it necessary to urge more businesses to publicise their performance. He states:
206
"Public reporting is absolutely essential to the credibility of any business, but some firms are thinking twice before committing themselves. It is therefore important that those which do operate a programme of environmental best practice gain the credit for it".
I commend that view. I go further. I suggest that the absence of a public declaration of such a programme can and will be construed as the absence of a positive attitude to environmental matters. It is important that credit is given where it is deserved.
What is needed is not a glossy brochure full of platitudes about general environmental worries—we receive some of those—but a genuine recognition of the problems which can be associated with the particular industry and an honest statement of any efforts made to mitigate or overcome their effects. In the present climate, where environmental considerations are much in the public eye, I believe that honesty is good business.
The second strand is the development of technology to avoid problems or to deal with them after they have arisen. My noble friend referred to the value of the market for environmental technology which he put at 200 billion dollars. It has been estimated that by the end of the decade that specific market will have grown to 600 billion dollars. That is serious money by arty standards.
In March 1991 the then Secretary of State for the Environment, a certain Mr. Heseltine, speaking at an RSA Better Environment Awards for Industry ceremony, stated:
"There are enormous opportunities for those British companies willing to attack markets at home and abroad. These markets are not just for clean-up or pollution abatement technology, they are also increasingly for clean technologies. The shift from 'end-of-pipe' techniques towards the use of fundamentally cleaner processes means that opportunities will fall to process designers and operators as well as to identifiable environmental technology sectors.
Reconciling economic growth with the protection of the environment will be one of the central challenges for the 21st century. It is not an exaggeration to say that the survival of civilisation depends on our success in meeting that challenge".
I believe that the Government have not moved away from supporting that statement by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, at least in words if not in deeds.
The United Kingdom has a proud record of innovative technology. I am not as pessimistic about it as my noble friend on the Front Bench. I believe that the expertise and enterprise still exist. Yet a recent survey, to which my noble friend referred, concludes that the British environment technology is not a world player. My noble friend referred to the survey and gave figures that 70 per cent. of the companies taking part in the survey earned less than 25 per cent. of their sales from exports. That is not a happy situation.
It is true that within the United Kingdom the driving force behind the investment by industry in environmental technology is the need for industry to meet UK and European legislation. That driving force in this country is weakened by the UK Government's failure to enforce environmental regulations. They make a great deal of noise about it in some circumstances; but when it comes to enforcement, we are very slow. I appreciate that in the Government's eyes there may be a conflict between the enforcement of regulations which would benefit the

207
innovative technology for clean-up and the existing industries which create the problems. But there is a huge market to be developed and it is of environmental benefit to us all. Yet the Government seem to lack the will or vision to create the right background for the market to develop.
I referred earlier to the report of Environmental Policy Consultants. The author of that report states:
"The new commercial goldmine for environmental technology manufacturers is in danger of being lost to foreign competitors unless the British Government strongly supports British companies by providing investment incentives, financial support for R&D, and by enforcing legislation properly".
That is absolutely true. My noble friend drew attention to the fact that it is in large measure the small businesses in this country which lead the field in the subject. It is small businesses which are most in need of government help and encouragement. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite of the old chestnut that so many small businesses fail because of the difficulties they have with cash flow and the need for the Government constantly to try to ensure that bills, including government department bills, are paid on time.
There is a rare opportunity here for the aims of industry and of the environmentalists to coincide. That does not happen often, and I hope that the Government will not miss this opportunity.
4.1 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, business is business. While it is true that the needs of the environment have been brought sharply into focus over the past decade, it remains accurate to say that the overwhelming majority of businessmen will do as much to preserve the environment as the law demands and yet as little as possible in that respect in order to preserve their profits. That is the harsh business reality. We all know it and we cannot wistfully wish it away.
What we can do, however, is to encourage a greater sense of responsibility for the environment among industry which will motivate action not just because the legislation demands it, but also because it is right. In that context, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising the matter in the debate this afternoon. Indeed, it follows upon the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, last month on sustainable development, as well as the recent establishment of the Select Committee on Sustainable Development, all of which show clearly that your Lordships' House attaches great importance to environmental matters.
Some noble Lords, I am aware, may take issue with my opening remarks and I happily acknowledge that there are exceptions. But in the main, precious few companies are prepared to invest more than they have to on environmental initiatives, particularly if less environmentally responsible firms in the same industry can save costs and gain a competitive edge on them. It is the harsh reality, particularly during the recent global recession.
The ideal state of affairs—which I regret some countries appear closer to reaching than Britain—would
208
be for instinctive environmental concerns to be shared by all companies in the market place. It is often understandable that some companies are wary of pursuing expensive environmental measures for fear of being left exposed and uncompetitive in their market sector. Such hesitation is not unreasonable.
There is, however, a marketing edge to be gained, often by companies showing their commitment to fulfilling their environmental responsibilities. But I repeat my assertion that business is business and, in general, companies cannot always be expected to demonstrate some kind of missionary zeal in protecting the environment when it conflicts with their prime responsibility of protecting their own market share. Here again, I share the concerns of many noble Lords who have already spoken about smaller companies needing more protection from being too heavily impeded by environmental legislation.
The chemical industry has made major inroads into cleaning up its tarnished public image, with initiatives such as the responsible care initiative already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, with many chemical companies struggling against overcapacity, poor demand growth, declining margins and tumbling profits, they are often stretched to invest more in furthering their commitment to fulfilling their environmental responsibilities.
Clearly, it is primarily the role of government to create a climate where it feels entirely natural for businesses—that is, all businesses—to take an active line on environmental matters. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 certainly took a step in the right direction, although some have expressed concern that the Act took a more remedial than preventive approach. However, it was a positive start.
On an international level, the Government contributed in a major way to the success of the Rio Summit when more than 800 billion US dollars was committed to environmental projects globally. Yet almost two years have passed and much of the heady euphoria which surrounded the Earth Summit seems to have evaporated. Other issues have seized the spotlight and disillusioned pressure groups have started to question whether anything was truly gained.
The progress has been slower in developing countries than in under-developed nations, largely because of the ever present conflict between expensive environmental measures and industry's natural urge to remain competitive. Perhaps this delicate balance will best be found by joint action between government and industry, with the Government creating the climate, both by introducing legislation and the use of economic instruments and initiatives and with industry en masse being receptive to broader concerns for the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already mentioned a number of voluntary environmental initiatives taken by several major companies.
There are other factors at work within the environmental cause. As a trustee of the Television Trust for the Environment, I am keenly aware that increasing public awareness through environmental

209
television programmes plays a crucial role in educating and influencing not just the public but also corporate opinions.
There is an ever increasing number of consultative agencies which advise companies in Britain on their environmental responsibilities. I understand that in 1986 there were fewer than 50 such agencies, and now there are well over 500.
Furthermore, certain initiatives pursued by the European Community are helping to stimulate a fresh approach in the market. Here I refer specifically to the Eco-labelling system as well as the Eco-audit legislation. All those have moved the debate in the right direction.
As environmental awareness and concern grow, an immense global market for environmental technologies and services has been created. Many noble Lords have already mentioned that it was worth well over 200 billion dollars worldwide in 1992 and it is due to grow substantially by the end of the decade. Happily, it seems that the United Kingdom is particularly well placed to take advantage of this growth. The environmental agency Ecotec was appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry to assess the export opportunities for United Kingdom suppliers of environmental goods and services. They found that this was an area where:
"the United Kingdom is very much in the black".
Exports in 1992 totalled more than £700 million. Nearly half those exports went to European Community countries and a useful 7 per cent. to East and South-East Asia. This is one of the growing markets in the sector. It is expected to grow from 2½ per cent. of the global sales at present to more than 10 per cent. by the year 2010. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has already mentioned, there is huge scope for there to be more growth in the export of environmental technology from Britain.
The United Kingdom's position in water and waste water treatment is particularly strong and the privatised water companies appear to have made substantial investments in such technology. There is, however, scope for more investment in air pollution control equipment, where an uncertain domestic market has disadvantaged United Kingdom companies. The approach to contaminated land remediation has been found to be technologically unsophisticated. Again, the lack of a proven track record has been a handicap to the prospects of British firms.
In the waste management field the Ecotec report says that the United Kingdom's strong dependence on landfill—I believe that 90 per cent. or more of all British waste is disposed of in landfills—and relatively lax environmental standards have reduced the scope for operators to develop innovative techniques. The United Kingdom is performing successfully in niche markets such as landfill gas. But it appears to be missing out in the growing market for integrated waste management services.
Noble Lords may be aware that the Labour Party, in criticising the Government's present policy of deregulation and the use of economic instruments, has suggested that progressive legislation at home can create a springboard for sales of environmental
210
technology abroad. There seems to be some evidence that this may be—and indeed is—the case. Several world leaders have emerged through tough domestic legislation. I refer to Germany, with its desulphurisation technology; the United States, with its catalytic converters; and Sweden with its incinerator emission abatement systems.
In conclusion, it is evident that the market—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He said that the Labour Party had put forward certain proposals, and he was quite right. Will he also accept that the idea that regulation can be the prime mover in developing technology is not simply a Labour Party idea; it is an idea that has been generated elsewhere, and in particular by your Lordships in Select Committee.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I certainly take the noble Lord's point. I agree that those initiatives have been issued not just by the Labour Party but also by your Lordships' Select Committees.
It is evident that the market in environmental technology is growing at a ferocious pace. The competition is great. But so are the rewards. Even in a world of environmental technology, business is business. We all know that. The challenge is to convince industry at large that business can still be business, but with a responsible concern for the environment.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, during the past few years none of us has escaped the effects of pollution caused by business. However, we are hesitant about the measures to be taken because of the need to earn our living. Therefore, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Williams for giving us the opportunity to debate this dilemma by calling our attention to industry's responsibilities towards the environment.
The Government have started to act by laying down standards with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the waste disposal regulations. As the previous speaker said, business is business. But there are pressures on business to go much further than that basic minimum. I should like to speak about how business is reacting to the pressure to accept more responsibility. I should also like to suggest what government can do to help business, and how, with care, that can help to make British industry more competitive.
Business can cope with the financial, marketing, economic, employment arid technical pressures. But pressure is felt by companies from various groups which have a direct interest in their environmental performance, and that is different. Those pressures do not come only from environmentalists. Investors wish to know what level of capital expenditure is needed to meet possible compliance criteria. They want to know what the actual or potential environmental liabilities may be for cleaning up waste or pollution. Bankers holding a business's land and buildings as security are anxious to find out whether pollution is diminishing the value of their security. The pollution could go back over 100 years. Local communities want to know the effect on their environment of site operations in regard to

211
effluent, waste disposal, transport, and air emissions. Customers want to know about the environmental impact of the products that they buy, because they in turn are under the same pressures. Employees want reassurance that the company for which they work is not exposing them to any health hazards and that the company itself has a good environmental record. Employees often form part of the concerned local community.
Business has responded to those pressures by voluntary action, which other noble Lords have described, and by introducing environmental policy statements and reports. It is now considered good practice to show responsibility by issuing an environmental report at the end of each year. My noble friend Lady Nicol quoted a recent appeal from the CBI which urged precisely that. KPMG Peat Marwick recently did a survey of the top FT 100 companies in the UK. That survey showed that 70 of those companies produced an environmental policy statement in 1993, compared with 42 in 1992. However, company environmental reporting is in its infancy so there is no agreed approach. Because of the growing voluntary and regulatory pressures, the level and nature of the environmental information being disclosed varies. In the survey only 12 companies gave bad news as well as good; though most were one-off references to some publicly known misdemeanour. However, the number of companies which both published an environmental policy and gave details of their plans for its implementation doubled.
Because company environmental reporting is a comparatively new concept, there must be a need for an agreed approach. Several groups have published their opinions on what environmental information should reveal and how this should be disclosed. At least one of the accounting bodies lists various criteria in judging which reports are good. The 100 Group of Finance Directors has published a statement of good practice. The CBI has set up a forum. Those different approaches make comparisons difficult. Naturally, businesses pick the style of reporting that shows them at their best.
Nevertheless, it would not pay any company to adopt a casual approach to this subject, since environmental reporting could become a necessity. That is definitely the long-term aspiration behind the European Union's Eco management and audit scheme, for which environmental reporting is a key requirement. In addition, one aspect of the Community's fifth action programme aims to get companies to reflect the full cost to society of the production and conservation of their goods and services. In the Netherlands the government are drafting a Bill that will require companies to publish detailed annual reports of their environmental impact and improvement plans. That will break new ground in Europe and could set the trend.
This area is where government leadership is required and looked for. In spite of the Government being in deregulation mode and in spite of their ambivalent attitude towards the European Union, perhaps the Minister can tell us what plans the Government have to regulate environmental audits and reporting. That is
212
important because those audits demonstrate that a company is engaged in a process of self-assessment and is alive to its responsibilities in the environmental debate.
A business's responsibilities to the environment also extend to the product that it makes. Here there is a difficult balance to achieve because although environmental considerations are gaining ground the ecological superiority of a product is not its most relevant selling point. Price and user satisfaction are more important. But environmental considerations are catching up. Ecological detergents are gaining ground over traditional ones. That is an aspect of competitiveness which seemed to have escaped the Department of Trade and Industry when it published its Factors Affecting Competitiveness in June 1993. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether the new paper, expected next month, will take that into consideration.
Rising environmental standards can lead to products becoming unacceptable and being replaced by imports. New profitable technologies must have a reduced environmental effect. Dr. Robert Wheelan, the chief executive of the Centre for the Exploitation of Science and Technology, put it rather well when he said:
"Solutions to future environmental issues must enable firms to operate green while remaining in the black".
Companies whose products fail to address the environment as a competitive issue will soon be in trouble with their financial backers, their insurance companies and their key customers and can suffer much adverse publicity.
Business must seek to make technological advances which are environmentally sound and combine those advances with remaining competitive. Legislation and government have an important role to play. First, there is the much discussed level playing field, which will define the lowest acceptable environmental standards and perhaps set targets to be achieved.
Secondly, legislation plays a role in creating a market. As my noble friend Lord Williams pointed out, perhaps the best known market created through environmental legislation is the waste disposal market. That is a hi-tech industry with huge potential and has provided important opportunities for the UK economy. We seem to have done quite well in that sector, partly because we have some stringent waste disposal regulations. The same effect can be seen in Germany, where stringent pollution abatement regulations apply. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, because of those regulations, flue gas desulphurisation has been refined and marketed by German companies, even though it was invented in the UK. The two British power stations with that technology had to buy their equipment from overseas.
Perhaps the greatest future opportunities lie in the prevention of pollution and waste as distinct from their treatment. Together with energy efficiency, that can dramatically improve a company's competitiveness. Other noble Lords have pointed out that, happily, it also coincides with the responsibility of business to the environment. That was clearly demonstrated by the Aire and Calder project. By applying both clean and lean technology to the 11 companies which discharged into

213
the Aire and Calder river basin, savings of £2.3 million were achieved from an initial outlay of £400,000. Further savings have been identified.
If industry spends less on waste and energy, there will be more for investment and employment. Therefore, there is a distinct relationship between competitiveness and clean and lean technologies. Quite rightly, the Government encourage waste minimisation, but unfortunately the recently announced joint DTI and Department of the Environment's environmental technology best practice programme, which helped to make the Aire and Calder project a success, will not provide further funds for projects of that kind. That is yet another example of that special type of government short-termism, whereby a good idea is started but the money is cut off before it is properly finished and the full benefit obtained.
The need for regulation is also recognised by the CBI, which calls for a clear and consistent regulatory framework—not a free for all. As my noble friend Lord Williams pointed out, a recent report from your Lordships' House concluded that:
"early adoption of strict environmental standards"
has given Germany and Japan a head start in the environmental market. Unless we are careful, those technologies will have to be imported, resulting in the diminution of our competitiveness owing to lack of regulation. That is why the DTI's plans are important.
The Government can help in other ways. They are a major purchaser and should deal only with contractors and suppliers with good environmental practice. They could also lay down mandatory limit standards on such matters as energy efficiency and waste. That does not mean that there are only high-tech requirements. It can mean achieving energy efficiency through low-tech businesses which can put thousands of or unemployed people to work.
The Motion of my noble friend Lord Williams speaks of technological advances improving the quality of life. I feel that people see that very much in terms of the impact of business on human health. Transport is central to that, particularly road transport. The first major UK environmental foresight project at the end of last year identified that very issue. It forecasted that concern about air pollution would generate a demand for new technical solutions to eliminate the emission of toxins into the air. That forecast looks accurate. Only today we have had a report on the bad effect of ground ozone on breathing. Recently it has been found that the number of children in our cities suffering from asthma has doubled. The cause of both problems was identified as being intimately linked to petrol and diesel fuel toxic emissions. That must lead to further regulation of motor vehicle fuels. There will have to be new planning for transport. Vehicle speeds may have to be reduced, to reduce both pollution and noise. There is little doubt that one of business's responsibilities to the environment is to minimise road transport because it is a hazard to human health and a cause of acid rain.
Concern about the quality of life is another pressure on business to develop environmentally sustainable technologies and products in the future. Incidentally, they are all matters dealt with by the Transport Research
214
Laboratory. The Minister will remember that those points were raised during the debate about the break up and privatisation of that laboratory at the very time when its work is becoming crucial to British industry. Perhaps that is another example of the Government's short-termism.
The responsibilities of business to the environment are expressed in their environmental audits and reports. They must be encouraged. Even though the Government are in deregulation mode, they must overcome that dogma and set about regulating the environmental standards and not be afraid to set them high. Experience has shown that it stimulates new industries and. technologies which can be sold to countries with less high standards. It also stimulates competitiveness.
It is the reduction of transport pollution which is important. The environment is a "quality of life" issue and pressure of public opinion is causing business to face up to its responsibilities. Perhaps nowhere was that more dramatically expressed than in the recent "Horizon" programme on BBC television about the worrying effects on human fertility of minute amounts of hormone-like chemicals which have recently appeared in our water. My noble friend Lady Nicol mentioned the survival of civilisation. That is absolutely true.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already offered to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the opportunity that he has given us this afternoon to discuss industry's environmental responsibilities. It is a huge, important and topical subject and one on which it is not easy to speak cogently in the time which I thought had been allotted to the debate. I discovered that it had been made "timeless", as it were, too late to expand on the subject. It may be to your Lordships' advantage that I shall not be speaking for as long as I might have wanted. I hope to be more to the point, if less comprehensive.
I hope that what is said today will provide a useful if modest contribution by this House to the wider debate already taking place outside and indeed throughout. the world. I am a little surprised and saddened by the relatively small number of Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the debate. In my view it deserves a rather wider audience. We have heard much good sense. If I had to cite any contributions, I would say that I found a good deal with which I agree in what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, had to say.
I doubt whether there are many in industry today who seriously question the reality and importance of industry's environmental responsibilities. To the extent that there are any such people, the level of interest shown in the subject by society at large would disabuse them of their view. What is not always obvious is how best those responsibilities are to be discharged. I have a personal interest in the environmental debate as one brought up to be something of a naturalist and, indeed, with one hat on, as a farmer. I know that many people in this country regard the farming community as being in the vanguard of environmental depravity. I do not feel quite like that.

215
Clearly, I must remind your Lordships also of a particular interest in the subject arising from my chairmanship of British Petroleum, although of course, I do not venture to speak on BP's behalf. In my years on the board of BP I learnt much from its experience of approaching and managing environmental issues. I have no doubt that BP's experience is not untypical of that of many other companies, not only in the oil business but over a broad range of industries. It is on the basis of that experience that I believe there is no inherent conflict of interest in rewarding shareholders, serving customers and improving environmental standards. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned that a committee of this House came to much the same conclusion.
It is a mistake to suppose that somehow industry has a vested interest in doing the minimum necessary in the environmental field. On the contrary, good environmental practice is usually good business. I realise that any assertion made in this debate is open to challenge, and the point I have just made is no exception to that rule. Given sufficient time it will be possible to debate the issue in much greater depth than is possible this afternoon. Let me explain briefly, therefore, why I believe no fundamental conflict exists between commercial and environmental considerations—I say "briefly".
First, people who work in business breathe the same air and have the same concerns for their children as everyone else. The employees of Britain's companies have a selfish interest in ensuring that their firms do not behave irresponsibly. Secondly, cutting environmental corners to save money is a dangerous option. It can lead to greater expense later on and may well incur competitive disadvantage. Many companies now see environmental performance as a source of competitive strength rather than weakness. That point has already been made. Customers often demand higher standards. Finally, to put it bluntly, an environmental disaster is inevitably a public relations disaster as well. A company's reputation for honesty, integrity and responsibility can be gravely impaired if—through negligence, incompetence or neglect —a major environmental accident takes place. Disasters can happen in the best run companies. But there is no doubt that what in business jargon is sometimes known as a company's "licence to operate" is absolutely fundamental to its interests. Its importance cannot be exaggerated.
As I say, I realise that each of those assertions is open to debate. It is clearly possible to think of circumstances where firms deliberately hope to get away with poor standards. That is why there is an important role for some level of legal safeguards and penalties. But essentially I believe that my proposition is sound. Where the difficulty arises is in knowing what needs to be done and where the priorities lie. The subject we are discussing is immensely complex. In many respects the most necessary, obvious and easy environmental improvements have already been identified and implemented—at least in the OECD countries. Close to home one thinks of the effective cleaning up of the Thames and the elimination of the London fogs which
216
were killers. I recall, as will many other noble Lords, the 1953 fog which killed thousands of sufferers of bronchitis and allied lung diseases.
The debate now centres upon options which are much more costly and uncertain in their effects. I shall not spend too much time on costs. Clearly, a balance must be struck between what would be ideal and what society is willing to pay, either directly by way of higher prices for goods or indirectly through centrally incurred costs of government. We are all guilty in our own way of employing double standards. We deplore the noise made by aeroplanes but want to go on cheap foreign holidays. We complain about road congestion but like driving our cars. Customers are by no means always willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to greener products. However, profitable companies and prosperous countries spend more upon the environment than businesses and economies in decline. That is not a coincidence; it is a warning. A poor economy is often a dirty economy, as demonstrated by the state of affairs in the former Eastern bloc countries to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred. Anything which impairs the strength of an economy will, in the long term, tend to have a negative impact upon the environment as well.
A greater problem is not merely the cost of doing something but its effect. We have now reached the stage where it is easy to prescribe costly so-called solutions which are at best unnecessary and at worst harmful. They can also contradict one another. Perhaps I can take one example from the oil industry to illustrate the point. First, in order to reduce CO2 emissions from refineries —that is, from the actual manufacture of petroleum products—but principally because it made good economic sense anyway, the oil industry invested in energy conservation measures throughout the past decade. Between 1980 and 1990 an underlying 30 per cent. energy efficient improvement was achieved. That is a good example of what new technology can bring about.
However, there was another environmental demand to satisfy at the same time. While demanding lower CO2 emissions, society also demanded lighter and cleaner fuels. That meant that the self-same efficiency improvements were offset by increases in refinery fuel consumption. The net effect of both was that actual fuel consumption remained broadly constant at 5 to 6 per cent. of crude oil input; in other words, no net improvement in CO2 emissions after all. With regard to the future, an escalating requirement for cleaner and lighter fuels is likely to cause an increase in refinery fuel consumption, which means that CO2 emissions will also rise. That example vividly illustrates the dilemmas facing both industry and legislators when it comes to environmental policy.
There is no doubt that technology has a vital role to play in helping industry to improve its environmental performance. Changes become possible which would have been impossible before. But technology must be closely linked to the problem in hand and it does not absolve either business or legislators from the need to face up to certain basic questions. To cite but one example: what environmental damage will result from

217
an absence of action and how certain is the scientific evidence for that? That question is especially pertinent in the context of global warming. I make no claim to expertise in that area. But no observer of the debate can fail to notice the conflicting expressions of respectable scientific opinion upon the subject. Clearly, there are some who believe that it is not necessary to act precipitately in this area. What is certain is that large-scale action on this or any other subject will be extremely expensive to society, will inevitably divert resources from other desirable goals, and may leave future generations with other onerous problems. That is why it is so often right to give priority to those matters which are both scientifically and economically justified and which can produce a discernible benefit.
There is a legislative approach which I believe could enshrine this principle. First, we must identify the issue to be tackled. Secondly, we must identify the goal to be achieved. Thirdly, we must assess the method under consideration. Clear answers to all three of those points seem to me to be essential. They involve looking at the cost implications and benefits of each proposal as well as asking whether the proposal is capable of sensible implementation.
This is where technology is often a key factor. There is no point in prescribing a detailed policy if consumers or industry lack the means of changing or adapting their behaviour. Some regard must be paid to the availability and cost of competitive technology before introducing economic instruments whose purpose is to wean consumers from environmental practices which society judges to be harmful. But where the technology exists, it can be crucial. In the oil industry, for example, horizontal drilling, developed very recently, has meant that much less landspace is now taken up in drilling for oil. That is of enormous environmental importance in places like Dorset where Wytch Farm—by far the largest onshore field in the UK—lies and where it is now possible, although it was inconceivable only two or three years ago, to access pools of oil which lie under Poole Bay from sites which are completely hidden from view around Poole harbour.
In the chemicals industry, a simple and inexpensive modification to valve packings has contributed to a significant reduction in hydrocarbon emissions to the atmosphere. New technology for polyethylene production has reduced hydrocarbon emissions by 96 per cent. and solid waste by 70 per cent. And these measures have an additional factor in common. An enterprise which thrives, earning a sufficient return to update its plant and the technology employed within it and to invest in research and development, will have both the incentive and the wherewithal to improve its environmental performance.
I should add that environmental policy in business is increasingly the province of top management and is an important yardstick for assessing performance throughout organisations as a whole. The objective of effective environmental management is to reduce risk and to minimise the detrimental impact upon the environment from a company's operations. And that is now becoming in many companies one of the criteria by which management rewards are set each year.
218
In conclusion I repeat a warning I made earlier. It is possible for environmental policies to either conflict with, or even to undermine, each other. And while in many respects I acknowledge the effectiveness and indeed the necessity to society, of those organisations which campaign most vigorously for higher environmental standards, I feel that sometimes they harm their cause by not being as responsible as they could be with their use of statistics and, on occasion, by ignoring facts which may not fit the argument they wish to advance.
In that context, it is worth drawing attention to the balanced approach to environmental issues so effectively articulated recently by the European Round Table in its charter for Europe's industrial future. The charter emphasises the need for consultation, for clear priorities, for a rigorous analysis of costs and benefits, and for closer international co-operation. It makes the point that sustainable development is an objective which needs a businesslike approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has introduced a subject to which I hope your Lordships will return again. There is no doubt that industry's responsibilities in this area are great and increasing. But so is the potential for legislators to undermine its ability to discharge those responsibilities. That is what we in this House, and in another place, need to remember.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I begin by saying that I agree with every word spoken by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. That is not a usual situation, but I agree with him entirely today and thank him For introducing the subject. I agree with virtually everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I intend to stop complimenting people there because I found this debate to be faintly depressing not because the speeches were not thoughtful or well informed—because they were —but because, as I saw it, it seemed to me that the assumptions of the "environmentalists", as I might call them, seem to have been taken more or less for granted by most speakers so far with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, whom I thought was more sceptical about the environmentalists than others. I shall not press him on that.
That caused me to wonder what we are talking about and what we mean when we use the word the "environment". It is a very glib word which is used very frequently in the media and in this House to mean whatever people want it to mean. I had occasion to question a witness at a hearing some months ago (perhaps little less than a year ago) of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House. I said to the witness: "What do you actually mean by 'environment'? Do you mean perhaps 'nature'?" The witness said yes and that the environment was nature. In her view, nature was the environment and man the despoiler and that he betrayed nature and changed it. That is an extreme view which I do not believe would be taken by most speakers today; but it is a view on the environment. When most people use the word "environment", they are referring to something which is being done which is causing harm to the environment which means "nature". I do not accept that and I

219
sincerely hope that the Minister does not accept it either. He, being a well-informed Scotsman, will not believe anything so silly.
Perhaps I may put the matter at its bluntest: nature is the enemy. If you turn your back on nature, you are overgrown. The natural state of nature is the wilderness. There are environmentalists who are very keen on the wilderness. I remember a colleague on these Benches who is now a noted environmentalist. He used to talk constantly of the wilderness, and how good it was; and how we should keep, improve, enhance and expand the wetlands. That is an extraordinary idea. Nature is the enemy, and if we turn our backs on it we are overgrown.
The real state of nature is a place like Burma which consists almost entirely of jungle and lost cities. Noble Lords will remember the Israelites and how they spent 40 years in the wilderness. Noble Lords will also remember how unhappy they were and how, as soon as Moses died, they headed straight for the land of milk and honey. They got out of the wilderness as quickly as possible and headed for the land of milk and honey—that is to say, they headed for civilisation. They had had enough of nature and the environment in that sense and they headed for civilisation.
I see the hand of man in nature as the hand of the improver, as the word was used in Victorian times. Man's business is to improve nature and to make it livable. That is hard lines on certain wading birds, and so forth; but they have ways of their own for getting along. The environment that we see is almost entirely man-made. As was said earlier by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, it was largely made by farmers, architects, engineers and landscape gardners. It is not something that has happened; it was made. The hand of the improver lay upon it. It is important that we set on one side of the balance the worries of the environmentalists, with their sentimental attachment to the wetlands, with the more sensible notion of civilisation and improvement on the other side.
I think, for example, of Switzerland which is a country with an environment, if ever there was one. Switzerland's mountains are lovely as they stand, but think how much Switzerland has been improved by the bridges of Robert Maillart, which punctuate the ravines and valleys and give the environment a sense of purpose and reality, bringing them to civilisation. Think, too, of the great motorway there. I use the word "motorway" particularly because people in this country get very worried about motorways. That is not a double-plus good word. The word "motorway" brings out the worst in many people in this country. But those who are interested in motorways should go to Switzerland and stand at the Chateau de Chaillot which, as your Lordships may remember, so excited Byron. When one looks up from there, one sees a great big motorway. And there is nothing more beautiful on this earth—not even the M.6, and that is pretty good. Of course, I grant that mistakes have been made. The road which is being taken through Twyford Down should have gone through a tunnel, regardless of the cost. That was a silly mistake brought about, no doubt, by some accountant.
220
As most of your Lordships will have realised by now, I was not quite sure what the title of the debate meant, but when we talk about the impact of technology on the environment, I think of the seas around this island. It so happens that I spent last weekend at a symposium in Edinburgh to commemorate the centenary of the death of Robert Louis Stevenson, the author and writer. The symposium was not really about him, but about his family who were lighthouse builders. It struck me while thinking about this debate that Robert Louis Stevenson's grandfather, Robert Stevenson, built a pioneering lighthouse on the Bell Rock off Arbroath; and his uncle built a lighthouse at Skerryvore off the Western Isles. There is no doubt at all that those two lighthouses, which were improvements and the work of man, impacted upon the environment in a way that would be questioned today. I am sure that if those lighthouses were built today, there would be lengthy public inquiries. People would no doubt go out to Bell Rock or Skerryvore and chain themselves to those rocks. That would not seem such a good idea when the high tides rose above the level of the rocks.
The way in which that technology impacted on the environment was harsh. The nature of Bell Rock and of Skerryvore was changed totally. However, the lighthouses were wholly useful, and although some sea-birds no doubt took off for somewhere else, birds are mobile and can actually get about. That is why I have no doubt that if birds are chased out of Cardiff Bay, they will find some other mudflat not far away.
I should now like to say something briefly about one aspect of technology which impacts on the environment. I refer to the provision of golf courses. I mention that because the provision of golf courses in this country has been seriously attacked by environmentalists as though golf courses were harmful things. It so happens that I have a peculiar experience of golf courses because I was born and brought up in a place called Troon on the Ayrshire coast where everybody is born with a massive niblick in his mouth—and most of us keep it there. Troon is roughly a semicircular town. Its boundary on the west is the estuary of the Clyde. On the inland side, it is surrounded entirely by golf courses. It is ringed —it is besieged—by golf courses. I was 26 before I realised that that was not the countryside. I thought that the countryside consisted of golf courses because they have everything that the countryside demands. They have butterflies, bees, roses, sand, and gorse bushes. They have everything, yet the environmentalists think that they are an intrusion merely because they are man-made. In fact, they are usually an improvement on what was there before.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with which I very much agreed. He spoke about emissions from fossil fuels and said that a great deal of money has been spent on scrubbers, and things of that nature—and no doubt rightly so, except for one fact. It is not entirely certain that the major culprit in the production of acid rain is the power station. It might well be the motor car. It is possible that that money had to be spent on scrubbers at power stations in the sense that if there is a problem, we have to try to do something —even if it turns out to be the wrong thing which, in this

221
case, it might very well be. Who can tell? Can we be sure that global warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions? Is it caused by CO2 emissions, NOx or sunspots? Questions are asked, but have not as yet been answered.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about energy management. If I understood correctly what he was saying, I took him to mean energy audits, whereby one examines a building or factory, determines its thermal capacities and so on, and decides whether it is using fuel efficiently. I think that that is what the noble Lord was talking about. As I understand it, the Government are about to do something about that. I thought that I saw an announcement the other day that the Government were engaged in some exercise along the lines of an energy audit. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that the Minister will tell me; and, if I am right, I have no doubt that he will take the credit for it. At any rate, it is not before time. I first came across energy audits in Denver, Colorado, in 1976. It is taking us a little bit of time, but no doubt we shall get there in the end.
I come now to almost my last point. I refer to the question of replacing fossil fuels by technological improvements of one kind or another because of the alleged deficiency of fossil fuels as a result of their emissions. We are asked to consider windmills as an alternative. I think that I am right in saying that the Government have abandoned all other alternative types of energy production, such as wave energy and tidal barriers, leaving the windmill as the star in the ascendancy. Windmills are all right—I have nothing against them—but they do not produce much more than a teaspoonful of electricity. They are not big producers of electricity.
I remember telling the House long ago—I am not quite sure when it was but it was so long ago that I think that I was sitting on the Benches on the other side of the House; that shows how long ago it must have been—that at one time I was involved in the construction of Pembroke power station. It was an oil-fired power station with a capacity of 2,000 megawatts, which is quite a lot. That is about as big as they come. I pointed out to the House then that if Pembroke power station, or one like it, were to be replaced by windmills, each of which produces rather less than half a megawatt, at least 4,000 of them would be needed. I calculated then, although I have not checked this calculation and so it may or may not be correct, that what would be required would be a windmill 300 feet high with a wing span of 75 feet, every 100 metres around the coast from Cardiff to Liverpool. They need not be put in a straight line. They can be put in a block. The 4,000 could be in a block. There is only one problem there. If they are in a block, they get in one another's way, and more than 4,000 would be needed. If they were in a block, it would be a block of windmills at least half a mile square. We should think of that in environmental terms and visual terms.
I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the Altona Valley in California. About 4,000 windmills are spread around there. Their vanes go around very gently.
222
They do not produce any electricity, not even a teaspoonful. It is a great deal of intrusion on the countryside.
If we are thinking of a technological replacement for fossil fuels, there is really only one, and that is nuclear energy, which has been rather quiescent for a while. I have only one question to ask about it. I was under the impression—I may be mistaken—that in answer to a Question a week or 10 days ago the Minister announced that the terms of reference for the nuclear review had not yet been settled. Was I right? That surprised me, because the nuclear review was due out this year, and if the terms of reference have not been settled, it cannot have started unless it has been working away quietly in the dark without terms of reference. That of course is possible. Are the terms of reference likely to be agreed some time reasonably soon? I do not want to rush the Minister on this. If so, will he give us a hint as to when the nuclear review will produce some sort of recommendation?
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred to natural gas. I should like to remind the Minister of an opinion that I have expressed previously in the House. I believe that it is wholly wrong to use natural gas as a secondary fuel to produce electricity, no matter how cheap it might appear to be. My reason is a wholly technological one. Natural gas is one of the country's best primary fuels. If we use it to produce electricity, we throw away about a quarter or 30 per cent. of its thermal efficiency. That is waste, and that kind of waste is wholly wrong.
I want just to refer to one remark my noble friend made in his opening speech. He asked whether we were enforcing higher environmental standards. I think we probably are; but if one looks at the higher standards, especially those emanating from Brussels, one will find that they are too high. They should be questioned. I shall end by saying that rather too much is being made of the environment and not enough about its improvement.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I know that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and to the Labour Party for having introduced this debate. It is sad that we do not have more speakers, but that has at least meant that the level of speeches has been high and there has been no need to limit them, and that has on the whole been welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, said that he was unduly restricted by the fact that he had not learnt about that lack of restriction, but I must say that he made such a good speech in 16 minutes that I rather doubt that he would have made a better one in 32 minutes. I think that we have probably just about the right level.
I shall not rise to the many flies cast out by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, except just to say that a definition of the environment can be found in any dictionary. It is all that surrounds us; it is the natural environment and also the man-made environment. He may be right when he says that Burma is a country of jungle and lost cities, but he failed to mention that it has also produced one of the kindest, gentlest, nicest groups of people in the world. That is slightly more than one can necessarily say for South-West Scotland.
Lord Strathclyde: Oh!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, that is despite the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I do not believe that there would be serious competition between Burma and Glasgow over the gentleness of their inhabitants. There has been a slight tendency—only a slight one—to draw up categories during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said that business is business. He said that twice. The first time it was a platitude, but the second time it was inclined—I think he meant it to suggest—to suggest that it can too easily mean that a company's main objective is a satisfactory bottom line, expressed in pounds, shillings and pence. We all accept, I think, that that is an important object for a company, and that if a company does not produce that it will not continue to exist. But the debate is all about providing the right climate whereby companies can do that at the same time as they can pay attention to their surroundings; be idealistic; and at last look forward to the long term, because that is what we are talking about.
We are talking about the long-term existence of industry, our country and our surroundings—in one useful and well defined word, the "environment". What is needed is the creation of a climate in which firms with good products, good methodologies and good consciences can work for the long term. That is not as good in this country as it is in one or two others. The climate needs to be created by us as consumers as voters, and therefore by our government, whichever party it may be at the time, and by us as workers —by homo faber.
Good firms are good and there are quite a lot of them, but there are not nearly enough. They are in the minority, and not necessarily an increasing one. A recent Institute of Directors' survey which has already been referred to showed that the number of companies whose boards see no reason to discuss environmental matters has risen by a third in the past year, and that only a quarter of companies has a formal corporate environmental policy. We give full marks to those firms which are showing the way.
We give full marks to BT which, for the second year running, won the environmental reporting award organised by the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. Full marks too to the association. However, only ICI was given full marks by the judges of the competition. It made the only attempt at financial integration of the environmental report with its main report. That is tremendously important.
The global action plan was launched recently in this country, although it is thriving in other countries. Companies are encouraged to build up their resources to help groups of their employees to green their own lives in groups. An interesting development is the idea that we do not act only as companies and as individuals. Companies and individuals can interact in this respect because companies have the resources to help individuals to do what they want. That is a worthwhile initiative, and full marks to British Gas which has taken it on. It is the first company in this country to start such a scheme.
224
As regards the European stage, we must help our fellow governments and try to follow the example of the countries which are further ahead, as a result of which some are more profitable. We must also help our fellow European member countries which need help in matters such as the destruction of the wetlands at the mouth of the Acheloos River in Greece. At another time, I could return to the argument about wetlands with the noble Lord, Lord Howie. This is not the moment.
Globally speaking, we too have a part to play because it is platitudinous that we are rapidly becoming one world, one economy and almost one set of industries. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, commented that the Uruguay Round has given carte blanche—and in some ways a freedom—to companies to do things that we must limit. Trans-national corporations (TNCs) can now move their businesses into the areas where workforces are poorly paid, inadequately protected by the law from exploitation and preferably where the government prize employment above the protection of their citizens. As a result, firms—especially chemical firms such as Du Pont and Bayer—are relocating to Shanghai, and the Mexican side of the Mexican-US border has become a dumping ground of horrific proportions. It is true that in the long term we need a well-educated and well-trained workforce, but, as Keynes remarked, in the long term we are all of us dead and—it may be added—the people in those workforces rather sooner than the rest of us.
If the international trading system is to play a positive role in improving human welfare—and it can—it cannot be administered through deregulated markets which are dominated by formidably powerful TNCs. The international community must take responsibility for imposing binding regulations on the trade and investment activities of the TNCs, which otherwise are exercising power without responsibility. That has been, your Lordships will remember, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in approaching the subject of the environment, I shall take a broader view than most Peers. The environment is not just the physical or the natural; it includes the economic and the social—
Lord Williams of Elvel: The quality of life.
Lord Peston: My Lords, yes. It is not only rural; it is also urban. One of the issues that most concerns me and other noble Lords is that many parts of our towns are no longer attractive places to live in. However, they could be so again.
The classical economic view is that firms create environmental costs—that is, they impose costs on others as regards dirt, noise, polluted water and so forth —but they do not take that into account. Therefore, the activities concerned are carried on on too large a scale, and perhaps they should not be carried on at all. At the same time, other firms benefit. While some firms create dirt other firms, such as the sellers of soaps and detergents, become more profitable. The fact that our water is less than drinkable enables some firms, such as the sellers of bottled water, to become more profitable. The fact that our environment is filled with noise is

225
advantageous to the sellers of earplugs and double-glazing. In other words, the economics of this is by no means simple.
To some extent—but only to some extent—the market works, as was said in a notable speech by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. When it comes to the recycling of waste products, the market deals with the matter because it is profitable. However, the noble Earl alluded to cases where recycling does not take place satisfactorily because it is not profitable.
In approaching these matters, economists consider that there are two ways. The first is legislation to prevent the so-called detrimental spillovers. The second is the polluter-pays principle. I speak for myself in saying that, in theory, the latter is the better approach. But frequently the costs of administering such a principle suggest that the legislative route may be cheaper and more effective.
In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the voluntary principle. I do not wish to decry decent voluntary action. Other noble Lords have spoken about the issue, but my position is closer to that of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. I do not think that we can rely on the voluntary principle unless it is backed up, as it is in practice, by threat of legislation, which is why many firms behave themselves. I do not mind that, but we should not be naive about these matters.
Also in this connection, the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, referred to the fact that we have cleaner air and, in the case of the River Thames, cleaner water. He mentioned the London fogs. I remember that I had to walk home from school in fogs so thick that I had to hold on to the walls and the railings of the houses—and I was rather terrified—in order to make sure that I got home. However, the improvements to which the noble Lord referred have not arisen as a result of voluntary actions. They have arisen from legislative actions; that is, the Clean Air Act and similar Acts. Therefore, I do not believe that we should set our face against legislation.
It is also my view that the environments of our great city and others have improved as a result of such legislation. However, I have not noticed that the UK economy has been ruined by such improvements or that businesses have not been able to flourish because they cannot pump vast amounts of dirty smoke into the environment. In other words, the notion that such legislation is ruinous for business does not stand up.
I said that I take a broader view of the environment, and therefore I wish to mention a particular aspect of the social environment that other noble Lords have not mentioned. I refer to crime. If one places crime in the economics context, it is interesting to note that it leads to a greater demand for security services and devices and is profitable for the insurance industry. As a result, insurance costs increase. It is also interesting to note that all of that is entered into GDP, a theme to which I shall return. Therefore, in a sense, if we want to see economic growth, as measured, the more crime the better. But I hope that we are all agreed that it would be much more efficient and sensible to try to control crime in the first place rather than to rely on the free market offsets of criminal activity. If, as I believe, unemployment creates
226
opportunities and an environment for crime—the Government reject that—then again, it would be sensible to do something about unemployment rather than worry about the profitability of the security industry.
I suggest to those of your Lordships who are not impressed by the empirical evidence of the relationship between unemployment and crime that common sense should be used. The adage that the devil finds work for idle hands to do seems to me to be overwhelmingly correct in that context and I still find it astonishing that the Government are unable to accept such a proposition.
I turn now to a related matter. Of course, Keynes and the Keynesians referred jocularly to a possible full employment policy in which some part of the labour force dug holes and the other part filled them up. A more sophisticated Keynesian view, a gloss on that, was that a third group put money into some of the holes before they were filled up which would act as an incentive to dig the holes a second time, which would create even more employment.
That flight of fancy has now become a reality. If one looks at our motorways or streets in our towns and. the behaviour of heavy goods vehicles, what are they doing? They are creating the Keynesian scenario. They are creating a great many holes in our roads and streets which our construction workforce then fills up, albeit with some time delay.
Because of the time delay—and I sometimes wonder whether that is government policy too—great damage is done to motor vehicles and that creates a demand for repair services. I say that to show your Lordships not only the complexities but also the interesting aspects of the economics of the environment.
I am guiding your Lordships towards the paradox that in a sense, the more some firms damage the environment, the more the activities of other firms are demanded to offset that. Therefore, it is equally true that to prevent and discourage firms from damaging the environment, creates employment problems for certain other firms.
One aspect of that concerns the way in which we measure our gross domestic product. Once we take into account environmental harm, it is apparent that we exaggerate the scale of our welfare gain as measured by our gross domestic product. I have seen a quite conservative estimate which is still rather horrifying. The best work is always done in the United States and that suggests that if you take an economy with an underlying, long-term rate of growth of 2.5 per cent. per annum, which is something like ours, at least a half percentage point of that—that is, one fifth—really should not be there because it accounts for environmental damage, rather than anything else. In other words, the way in which we measure our GDP does not reflect fully what is happening to the quality of life.
I do not believe that we need high powered economists to tell us that. We merely have to go out into our streets and look at what has happened to the physical environment of one big city in the past 15 years. It is certainly true that in ordinary measured real terms, our

227
standard of living has increased. But it is difficult to convince oneself that the quality of life has also increased, at least pari passu.
I reiterate the point which was made strongly by my noble friend Lord Williams and also by other noble Lords. I do not doubt that in the short term, in the endeavour to improve the environment as it is connected with industry, we are imposing costs on firms. If we prevent firms from behaving in the way in which they choose, that must add to their costs and that will be a problem for them. But I believe—and this is the point made by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others—that those costs are extremely short term and that pressurising firms in that way will yield considerable long-term profits.
Many examples have been put forward but there are two obvious examples which appeal to me, as someone who lives in this city. The private sector, as a result of pressures from the public, has done an enormous amount of work to make aircraft engines quieter. That has been a boon to us all and it has also been profitable. That is the point that my noble friend makes. The same point applies to reducing exhaust pollution from motor vehicles. Again, that improves the environment in which we live and if you are in at the right time, an innovator, it is immensely profitable.
I am sorry to be doing my usual economist, "on the one hand this, and on the other hand that", but there is an interesting technical point on the environment and free trade. If our competitors ignore environmental costs and we take them into account, they will have what we might call an unfair competitive advantage. We may complain about that. I know that President Clinton has made a point about poor working practices biasing the system against American industry with its good working practices. Essentially, the developing countries would have an advantage, but the cost would be a poorer quality of life.
However, were we to retaliate against them and say that we shall break the GATT agreement on that account, they would almost certainly produce the riposte that when Great Britain was the workshop of the world and we dominated world markets, we did not worry about our own environment. In fact, we were busily destroying the environment of Victorian England willy-nilly. Therefore, those countries may take the view that they are now in the same position and are not going to be told by us about what is fair and unfair competition.
I now take an even broader view. In my judgment, this country needs most of all—the big idea—a commitment to a return to full employment. It was the great boon of the post-war era. It was what we owed to our soldiers who fought: those who returned would return to jobs and not to the dole. The betrayal of the 1980s and 1990s has been the abandonment of that gain, partly on the grounds that it is no longer feasible. But, as has been apparent from today's debate, there is work to be done and in the context of today's debate, it is obvious where it must be done: in improving the environment. But since the benefits are mostly public benefits, much of the finance for environmental
228
improvement must come from taxation—and I say that in terms—and it must come from public sector borrowing. In return, we receive efficiency benefits because a better environment helps industry; we receive employment benefits, as I have just outlined; and we receive consumer benefits because we can enjoy our private lives better in cleaner and safer surroundings. The purpose of the debate was to draw attention to all that and to emphasise that it can be done.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I have enjoyed listening to some good speeches and to some speeches that were good in parts. There was an excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, which I very much enjoyed. He brought his technical expertise to bear, and I am grateful that he took part.
We heard the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, at some length. Having got the environmentalists in his sight, he continued with the accountants. Whether or not he was being kind about golfers, I am still not sure. The noble lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was correct in not rising to some of the flies cast by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, should not perhaps reflect on what he said about the people of the south west of Scotland and his portrayal of them in a far bleaker light than what he called the fun-loving people of Burma. It is my belief that Burma is run by the most frightful and bloody dictatorship, and that could certainly not be a description of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord as regards the Government of Burma. I meant no great insult to the people of Glasgow. In fact, Glasgow is my favourite city in the United Kingdom. I absolutely love it. It is, indeed, most splendid. I merely think that its people on the whole are not as gentle as the run-of-the-mill Burmese. That is all.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to have given the noble Lord an opportunity to correct his remarks. In his winding-up speech on behalf of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he felt that the quality of life had not improved. At least, that is what I thought he said. Yet, he himself gave us the example of when he came back from school and had to do so in the fog, whereas today it is almost impossible to find the kind of fogs that existed in his childhood. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Minister is most flattering. I went to school 40 or more years ago. I referred to the quality of life not improving during the past 10 years. I know that I look young, but I did not leave school 10 years ago.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I still believe that, in the course of the past 10 years, the quality of life and of the environment has much improved. I can only assume that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, lives in a local authority which is controlled by the Labour Party rather than the Conservative Party. In the environment in

229
which we work, one has only to walk around the Palace of Westminster to see the massive improvement to the built environment with the cleanliness not only of the buildings but also of the streets.
I was delighted to hear the welcome of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the DTI's recent document. I hope that we can make it more publicly available to other noble Lords. The debate has also been blessed by the fact that we have not involved ourselves too much in the difficult detail of environmentalist language—for example, BEPEO, BATNEEC, Agenda 21, and so on. I felt that, generally, we had our feet very firmly on the ground. Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said. However, there is still a substantial gulf between our fundamental beliefs.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should hope so!
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is glad about that; so am I. However much the noble Lord wishes to convince industry that he and his friends in the Labour Party are now industry friendly and however warm the embrace and welcoming the smile, he cannot hide his gut reaction, his natural instinct to legislate and to regulate; hence the noble Lord's comments on the Government's initiative on deregulation. Of course, deregulation is all about removing unnecessary burdens on business, not the very necessary protections for consumers. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He is quite right as regards what I said about deregulation. However, does the Minister recognise that the deregulation Bill as it stands deals with regulations, 79 per cent. of which have been introduced by his Government since 1979?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords; that is exactly the point. There is a temptation for governments to legislate far too hastily. That is why, when the Bill comes before the House, I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues in the Labour Party will support it.
There is the contention that the noble Lord had—at least, I think he had—that led me to believe that any old legislation was good enough because it would or it might possibly raise standards and that, in the long term, would be to the benefit of industry. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, understood very well what the noble Lord was saying when he said that regulations should be carefully thought through.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, was, at least in its early stages, rather disappointing. He seemed very much to express the belief that business is business and nothing else. He said that strong legislation works and gave examples of where he thought that that was the case. However, in Germany, which has introduced draconian laws on recycling, the policy has not been a success. It has simply led to the exporting of waste products around the world and a reduced price for those markets. It has not been of benefit to anyone. Nevertheless, I welcome the
230
noble Lord's call for industry sectors to act collectively. Indeed, it is often an excellent way of minimising the costs on individual companies.
Perhaps I may now look at the Government's responsibilities. There is nothing new in the idea that government have a role in protecting the environment. The 19th-century political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, saw the protection by government of,
"the inheritance of the human race "—
that is, the earth, its forests and waters—as essential to a "civilised society". The idea has worn well: his very phrase, "this common inheritance", was used as the title for our 1990 White Paper on the United Kingdom's environmental strategy.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure that the environment is protected. They must ensure that minimum environmental standards are maintained. They must act internationally with other governments to tackle trans-boundary pollution and global environmental issues; and they must take responsibility for maintaining our environmental legacy to future generations, for ensuring that economic development is sustainable. The principle that the polluter must pay for environmental damage has been widely accepted both in the UK and internationally. However, the cost of environmental damage is often poorly reflected in the: price of goods and services. Therefore, government must act to compensate for that market failure.
The reasons for government action are not hard to find. Much more difficult is choosing how to act—how to achieve the balance between regulation and voluntary action. This Government are not one to rule by decree and diktat. The dire environmental record of the former communist bloc, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggests that that was no better for the environment than it was for anything else.
Regulation is only one way of achieving environmental objectives. Although sometimes necessary, it is the last resort: we much prefer to use the more flexible market-based mechanisms and to encourage voluntary action where we can. Government have a duty to ensure that environmental legislation is proportional to the problem and that it is based on good science. That applies equally to European Community legislation.
Perhaps I may turn now to the background; the effects of technological change and the impact of industry on our quality of life. From the earliest times, technological advances have had an important impact on man's quality of life, usually to improve it. Let us consider, for example, the immense benefits in the past hundred years of mains water and drainage, high-yield crop varieties and refrigeration. Over the past few years, however, environmental concerns have raised doubts about the sustainability of economic growth in the developed world. It became clear that human activity was affecting the environment on a global scale in possibly irreversible ways.
However, more recently there has been a most encouraging recognition that continuing growth can be compatible with improving the environment. The goal of sustainable development has become widely accepted. That marks a new departure but one which is most welcome. Government and industry have been

231
working closely together on a number of environmental initiatives in recent years. First, for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will know, more than 1,600 organisations have joined the "Making a Corporate Commitment" campaign since its launch in October 1991. Each has pledged top management support to improving energy efficiency. Secondly, there is the Climate Change Programme which was launched this January. It is based on the partnership approach. Thirdly, there is Groundwork, an environmental movement which works in partnership with companies, local authorities, community and voluntary groups, and schools on environmental regeneration. Finally, there is the Producer Responsibility Initiative which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. It was launched in July last year with a challenge from the DTI and the DoE to encourage manufacturers to take a share of the responsibility for what happens to their products at the end of their lives.
Last year we ran a solvents roadshow which visited all the regions of the Engineering Employers' Federation. Such examples are encouraging. But what exactly are industry's responsibilities towards the environment? Beyond obeying the law, I can see several areas of responsibility which different kinds of company management subscribe to. First, responsibilities to owners or shareholders. This is the most basic level. Every commercial business has to make a profit before it can even think of doing anything else. I hope that there is no disagreement in the House about that.
I must, however, disagree with some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The managements of British companies are interested in more than just the shareholders. They have responsibilities to their wider stakeholders; their customers, employees, bankers and insurers, and the wider communities which surround their operations. That brings me back to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for statutory rather than voluntary solutions. However, I welcome his recognition that our small firms sector must be nurtured. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, welcomed the NatWest initiative. I, too, welcome it. I am not at all convinced, however, by the case made by some for special status to be accorded small firms. I believe that good regulation should be applied across the board for all companies to stick to.
I wish to refer briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and his contention that business is business. I agree with that, but business is far more than just making money. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for the first five minutes, made an excellent speech. However, when he entered upon the statutory role, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I did not find the speech so interesting. I agree with the noble Lord that companies have an interest in voluntarily protecting the environment. I agree too with the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, that there is no conflict between rewarding shareholders and protecting the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, talked about the exemplary companies such as British Telecom and British Gas. There are many more. Many companies feel a wider moral responsibility,
232
reflecting the concerns of their management. Whereas perhaps 100 years ago a benevolent company might have built model workers' dwellings and temperance halls, today they consider how to use their position to address some environmental problems.
Some firms think of environmental improvements as a luxury —that is a pity—only to be addressed by a third group. Other firms have made a real commitment to the environment and have integrated environmental concerns into all aspects of their operations. There are many dozens, indeed hundreds, of examples of companies, large and small, that have specialised in bringing technology to bear to improve their environmental performance. Of course, addressing the concerns of wider stakeholders is good for business because firms and industries with a poor environmental reputation find it harder to set up on new sites or to attract good staff. Commercial customers are becoming increasingly concerned with the environmental credentials of their suppliers. Increasingly, insurers and investors are demanding higher environmental standards and consumers sway the market. For instance, it was consumer attitudes that made CFC-free aerosols a success. In other words, industry's responsibilities for the environment are now part of its responsibilities for itself.
This has been a constructive and stimulating debate. The demand for environmental improvements shows in the growth of environmental technology business ranging from water treatment, waste and energy management and contaminated land remediation to environmental monitoring. The environmental technology business was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The noble Baroness said that the market was currently worth 200 billion dollars and within the next 20 years would reach around 600 billion dollars. If anyone still believes there is an inherent contradiction between environmental improvement and economic growth, those figures will surely convince them otherwise.
I disagree strongly with the view that United Kingdom industry is not doing well in this regard. For instance, it was Johnson Matthey who developed and supplied catalytic converters for petrol engine cars during the 1970s and 1980s, long before legislation made controls mandatory. The company gained a lead when converters were required in the US, Japan, and most recently in Europe. JM is now the world's largest producer of automotive catalysts, supplying among others Japanese car manufacturers in east and south-east Asia. It gained a Queen's Award for Environmental Achievement in 1993. Our recent study entitled The United Kingdom Environment and Technology: Succeeding in a Changing Market shows that overall the UK environmental industry enjoys a trade surplus of 350 million dollars.
I turn briefly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. There seems to be some confusion about the tax on gas, which I gather is half that on leaded petrol. However, perhaps that is an issue I can look at later in detail and then write to my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope I may interrupt the noble Lord, as I meant to raise the point too. The point was so intriguing that one felt it could not possibly be right. When the Minister asks the Treasury what it thinks it is up to, will he let the rest of us know as well because this is an extremely important point?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to do so. I can shed some light on the matter. I understand that the tax on unleaded petrol is 25p per litre and on gas 15p per litre. I gather, however, that it may take more gas to make a car run for a similar number of miles, and that is where my noble friend may get his figure. I shall have to look further at the matter because I do not pretend to be an expert.
The DTI and the Department of the Environment recognise the need to work closely together to get all sorts of messages across to business, and we are doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, talked about the ingenuity of business and my noble friend Lord Lindsay talked about the inventive energy of industry, although I think he referred to Frances Cairncross when he said that. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that enterprise still exists. I agree with all such statements. We have a vibrant, keen economy and clever people who are looking at environmental solutions to the problems that surround us, and are doing so successfully. I conclude with a quotation from my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who told the Conservative Party conference in 1988:
"No generation has a freehold on the earth. All we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease".
Those words deserve repeating, as awareness of all our environmental responsibilities spreads. There is tremendous scope for government and industry to act in partnership to create a cleaner and sustainably managed environment for our descendants.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he consider the proposition that the working environment of your Lordships' Chamber still leaves a great deal to be desired and that he might look into that to the benefit of us all?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that there is a committee empowered by your Lordships to look at precisely those kinds of problems.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he refer, however briefly, to the nuclear review?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have dealt with that several tunes at Question Time. There is to be a review but the terms of reference have not yet been worked out. It will be done as soon as possible.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think in many ways it has been a useful and encouraging debate and I am grateful to the Minister for his response in certain parts, as he said about other speeches.
234
It is a matter of regret that noble Lords were prepared to spend two days airing their opinions on which shops should open on Sunday but seem, judging from the list of speakers today, to be largely unconcerned about whether or not the planet blows up. It is a matter of regret, which I should like to record. However, that is not in my control or, indeed, in the control of the noble, Lord opposite or of the Government Chief Whip, or our own Whips on our side of the House. It is a question of the House deciding which debates noble Lords favour and which they do not.
I am sorry that the Minister lost interest—to use his own words—in the speech of my noble friend Lord Haskel when he came to talk about regulation. As my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out, pretty well all improvements in the environment since the last century, and indeed in the last century, have been brought about as a result of legislation. And legislation, I am afraid, means regulation. So I hope very much that those words, which the noble Lord the Minister may have used inadvertently, will not return to haunt him.
The Minister quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I had no idea that he was a Thatcherite in such an extensive manner. I now know where he stands. He is quite right in saying that he and I disagree fundamentally on certain aspects of politics, indeed probably on most aspects of politics.
I am grateful to all who have participated in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Treasure Bill [H.L.]
5.51 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 (Vesting of treasure in Crown):
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("(1)") to ("in") in line 8 and insert ("Treasure found in any place after the commencement of this section vests, subject to subsection (1A)—

(a) if the place is a place for which there is a franchisee,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the most part it will be for the convenience of the House if we group by clauses the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and myself and discuss them together.
Before we proceed any further I should like to pay tribute to the parliamentary draftsman. Noble Lords will notice that there are a considerable number of amendments. Broadly speaking, the earlier draft included what we proposed, but that has now been put into much better words. I want to stress the debt of gratitude that we owe to the draftsman.
I shall speak to the first group of amendments under Clause 1 together. They are largely drafting amendments or amendments dealing with necessary technical details. The broad effect of Clause 1 remains as it was: treasure trove is abolished and a new, enlarged concept of treasure is introduced, the scope of which is defined in Clause 2, and provision is made for the vesting of treasure in the Crown and in franchisees as appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are purely drafting amendments. Amendment No. 2 moves the provision protecting certain parties' rights from Clause 2 to Clause 1. It fits more appropriately as a restriction on the rights of the Crown and franchisees. This is the provision which ensures that treasure does not vest in the Crown if someone can show that he or she was its owner before it was lost or hidden or is the successor in title to that owner.
Amendment No. 5 substitutes the new rights in treasure for old rights in treasure trove, provides that treasure, like treasure trove, is to be treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown; and makes certain technical changes to the definition of franchisees, most notably by making specific mention of the Duke of Cornwall. This is necessary for purely historical reasons concerned with the origins of the Duchy's right to treasure trove. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps at this point it would be helpful if I were to say a brief word about the Government's general position on the Bill.
Your Lordships will recall that we felt unable to support the Bill at Second Reading but made clear at Committee stage that we would reconsider our position in the light of the strong support which the Bill received from all sides of the House and the amendments moved at Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which in our view made considerable improvements to the Bill as introduced.
We have now reconsidered the Bill in the light of today's amendments. As will be clear from the Marshalled List, we have concluded that the Bill, with certain further changes, deserves the Government's support. I am delighted that we have been able to reach that conclusion. It is a tribute to the determination and persistence of the noble Earl and his colleagues that we have co-operated so well together. I should also like to join him in his kind remarks about the parliamentary draftsman and officials, who have worked extremely hard and of whom we are very appreciative.
The Bill as it now stands, and as we propose that it should be amended, I believe offers the best possibility of significant improvements in the present law of treasure trove. However, I should make clear, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, that the Government's support is not a guarantee that the Bill will be enacted. At this stage in the Session the time available for Private Members' business in another place is very limited. This Bill will have to take its chance there with other business. Nevertheless, I hope that by the end of the evening we shall have a Bill which will command wide support and will therefore have good prospects of a successful passage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("(1A) The following interests and rights in or over any object to which subsection (1) applies shall have priority, so far as they have not been abandoned, over the interest that vests under that subsection, that is to say—

(a) the interests and rights subsisting immediately before that object was hidden, lost or otherwise left in the place
236
where it was found or, if it was disturbed or removed before being found, in the place where it was before being disturbed or removed, and

(b) any interest or right deriving from any of those interests or rights.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("property") and insert ("treasure").
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("property") and insert ("treasure").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14 leave out from first ("the") to end of line 15 and insert ("treasure was lost, was buried in a grave or was abandoned.
(3A) Property vesting in the Crown under this section shall be treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown to which section 1 of the Civil List Act 1952 applies (surrender of hereditary revenues to the Exchequer) and may be transferred to any person, or otherwise disposed of, in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.
(3B) Neither the Crown nor the franchisee for any place shall have any interest or right in or over any treasure trove found after the commencement of this section except in accordance with this section.
(3C) References in this section to the franchisee for any place are references, as the case may require—

(a) to any person who immediately before the commencement of this section was, in relation to that place, the franchisee of the Crown in right of treasure trove; or

(b) to any person who (apart from this Act) would for the time being be entitled, as successor in title, to the rights as franchisee in right of treasure trove of the person mentioned in paragraph (a);

and for the purposes of this subsection it is as a franchisee in right of treasure trove that the Duke of Cornwall is to be treated as having enjoyed all the rights to treasure trove belonging, immediately before the commencement of this section, to the Duchy of Cornwall.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Property which is treasure for the purposes of section 1]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 13: Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 23 and insert:
("The objects which, if found after the commencement of section 1, are treasure for the purposes of this Act are the following—

(a) any coin which is at least 300 years old when found and is part of the same find as one or more other coins any of which is at least 300 years old at that time,

(b) any object (not being a coin) which is at least 200 years old when found and has a metallic content at least 5 per cent. by weight of which is precious metal,").

Page 1, line 24, leave out ("(or may reasonably be assumed to be)").
Page 1, line 26, leave out from ("found") to end of line 11 on page 2 and insert:

("(d) any object not within paragraphs (a) to (c) which would have been treated as treasure trove if found before the commencement of section 1, and

(e) any artefact not within paragraphs (a) to (d) which is part of the same find as treasure within any of those paragraphs or as any object which would be treasure within any of those paragraphs if the object had been found at the same time as the artefact.

(1 A) For the purposes of this section where an object is found by any person, that object is part of the same find as another object—

(a) if it is found together in the same place with the other object, or

(b) if it had previously been hidden, lost or otherwise left together in the same place with the other object.

237
(1B) In any proceedings in which the question arises whether any object found after the commencement of section 1 is or was treasure—

(a) any coin or other object that could reasonably be taken to be, or to be more than, a certain age shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to be at least that old; and

(b) objects found in circumstances which may reasonably be taken to indicate that they have been together in the same place at any time before being found shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been hidden, lost or otherwise left together in the same place.

(1C) An object is not treasure for the purposes of this Act if it is comprised in any wreck (within the meaning of Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894).").
Page 2, line 14, leave out first ("or").
Page 2, line 16, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory instrument").
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("section 1") and insert ("this Act").
Page 2, line 22, at end insert:

(""artefact" includes a coin and any part of an artefact; "coin" includes any metal token which was used, or was intended to be used, as or instead of money or which may reasonably be assumed to have been so used, or to have been intended for such use; and").

Page 2, line 23, leave out from ("both)") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I propose to move Amendment No. 6 and the other amendments to Clause 2—Amendments Nos. 7 to 13—en bloc.
First, I should like to say how much I welcome the statement just made by my noble friend the Minister that the Bill will soon be in a form in which it can receive the support of the Government. That is a successful and significant step forward.
I should also like to pay tribute to the work which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has put into the Bill. We realise that it is his wisdom and persistence which has brought the Bill to this point. All of us in the House very much applaud his enterprise in that respect.
The clause is important because it defines the scope of the new concept of treasure. The main features of the definition in the unamended Bill are retained, but with one or two significant modifications.
First, one of the principal aims of the Bill is to secure the reporting and vesting of all objects which are comprised in the same archaeological find, the same archaeological context, not just those objects which contain precious metal. For instance, the pottery container which contains a hoard of coins may be of great archaeological significance and should be part of the find. The provision is retained, but the draftsman has now expressed it in terms of coins which are "part of the same find" rather than "part of a series". It is perhaps a minor clarification.
Secondly, there are some significant changes in the way in which coins are treated. Under the Bill's original proposals, any coin, no matter how new, would have been treasure if it were found with other coins or other treasure provided that the coins contained at least 0.5 per cent. of gold or silver. But that would have presented a problem for finders. It is not easy to ascertain the precise percentage composition of finds without scientific analysis. There would also have been a risk that museums would be swamped by relatively modern coins. The proposal now is to remove the requirement for any precious metal content in coins, but instead to introduce a requirement that those coins must be at least 300 years old to qualify as treasure. In that way
238
important finds of coins, including significant hoards, of bronze coins, for instance—Roman bronze coins or whatever —will be treasure and will require reporting.
Amendment No. 8 does a number of significant things. First, it provides that any object which would have previously been treasure trove but does not fall into the categories as defined in earlier parts, will nevertheless qualify as treasure. The most common instance of that might be single gold coins found in isolation, such as the Celtic gold stater, or something of that kind.
Secondly, the amendment sets out to clarify the position of objects which are part of the same find by providing that, where a number of objects are found over a period of time, they shall all fall within the definition of treasure including those which would not have qualified as treasure but for the earlier or subsequent finds of precious materials. Those points are set out in the new Section (1A) in the proposed amendment.
Finally, Amendment No. 8 provides in new Section (1B) that finds shall be presumed to be as old as they appear to be unless there is evidence to the contrary. At first sight that might seem an arcane point. However, the issue is essentially one of burden of proof. If the finds appear to be old, they will be accepted as old unless someone can demonstrate a case to the contrary. I hope that noble Lords will agree that in practical terms that is appropriate.
In relation to burden of proof, new Section (1B) (b) refers to,
"objects found in circumstances which may reasonably be taken to indicate that they have been together in the same place".
In such a case they will be deemed to constitute a find. In other words, once again the burden of proof is that if they appear to have been lost together or buried together, they will be deemed a single find for the purposes of the Bill.
One other point about Amendment No. 8 deserves mention. Paragraph (d) of the original Bill provided that any object found with treasure should itself be classified as treasure. Amendment No. 8 substitutes for the word "object" the word "artefact". That will obviously include the full range of man-made objects such as pottery or ornaments, or, for instance, cut gemstones; but it will not include natural objects. Nor will it include human remains. There is a view that it would be inappropriate to include those within the scope of treasure.
There may yet be one or two areas for concern. Under the amendment, uncut gemstones or pearls, for instance, or finds of unmodified amber would not be classified as treasure. I have a fleeting concern on that point. But noble Lords will note that the Secretary of State's power to extend the definition of treasure by order in subsection (5) of the clause is not restricted. Therefore small matters relating to finds of pearls, amber, or uncut precious stones, could be dealt with in that way.
The other amendments to the clause are either technical or self-explanatory. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I wish to draw attention to one point. At paragraph (b), Amendment No. 6 refers to 200 years. I must confess that I am not entirely happy with the period of 200 years. The year 1794 is such a short time ago—it is almost within memory! If one refers back, let us say, 300 years to 1694 one has a quite different class of objects.
I mention that at this point so that between now and Third Reading we may consider whether to change the figure from 200 to 300.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the noble Earl for this reason. If we compare paragraphs (a) and (b) in Amendment No. 6, there are advantages in applying the same criterion to the type of objects which we find under each of those paragraphs. I hope that between now and Third Reading my noble friend Lady Trumpington will be so kind as to consider the advantage of consistency.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we shall have a jolly good look at the issue and, if necessary, bring it back at Third Reading.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of jurisdiction of coroners]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction of coroners
(".—(1) The jurisdiction of coroners which is referred to in section 30 of the Coroners Act 1988 (treasure trove)—

(a) shall be exercisable for the purposes of this Act in relation to any objects appearing to be treasure to which section 1 applies; but

(b) shall cease, in relation to anything found after the commencement of that section, to be exercisable for the purposes of the law relating to treasure trove;

and that Act and anything saved by virtue of section 36(5) of that Act (saving for existing law and practice etc.) shall have effect accordingly.
(2) An inquest held by virtue of this section shall be held without a jury.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. In the Bill as it stands, Clauses 3 and 6 deal in slightly different ways with the jurisdiction in relation to treasure which coroners will have when the Bill is passed. From the point of view of drafting and presentation, it is obviously desirable that the provision should be in one clause rather than two—that is, the new Clause 3. It enables us to get rid of the original Clause 6.
The effect is to ensure that coroners have jurisdiction to conduct inquests—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive my intervening. Does he speak to Amendment No. 29 as well as to Amendment No. 14?
Lord Renton: My Lords, yes. Amendment No. 29 gets rid of Clause 6. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Perhaps I may state this again. The combined effect, and the result of the new clause, will be to ensure that coroners have jurisdiction to conduct inquests into treasure, and that they do so without juries. We discussed the matter briefly at Committee stage. There
240
is no reason for me to go into it again. It is agreed by both sides of the House. The amendments would make no change in the role envisaged for coroners.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duty of finder of treasure to notify coroner]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2 line 28, leave out from ("(1)") to ("to") in line 40 and insert:
("A person who has found any object in any place and believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that the object is treasure shall notify the find to the coroner for the district in which the find was made or, where the office of coroner for that district is vacant, to the person acting as coroner for that district.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), notification for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be given before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day after the making of the find or (if later) with the day on which the person who has made the find first believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that the object is treasure.
(3) Any person who fails without reasonable excuse").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 4 imposes a duty on the finder to notify the coroner of his or her find. Breach of that duty is a criminal offence. The duty to report is retained in the amendment, but it is expressed rather differently from the previous wording.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but am I right in thinking that the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 15 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the answer is yes. The duty to report is retained in this amendment, though in somewhat different terms from those that we had earlier. First, the period within which notification should be given is reduced to 14 days as against four weeks. Secondly, the requirement for a "wilful failure" to report is replaced by a defence of "reasonable excuse". This is a broader concept which recognises that an offence might be committed, for example, by sheer negligence as well as by deliberate wilfulness or dishonesty. We believe that it is an improvement in the expression of the duty.
Some noble Lords may feel that to allow 14 days for reporting finds is over-generous and may result in the loss of important archaeological evidence. We have thought about that a great deal, but what is at issue here is a criminal offence. For that we must have a definite objective time limit. To say "as soon as is practicable" in the Bill would be too imprecise. But the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State in Clause 9 can, of course, stress the need for early reporting and make clear that it will be taken into account in assessing rewards to finders. I believe that the last sentence is of the greatest importance. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 16:
Line 3, after ("shall") insert ("as soon as is reasonably practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are intended to supplement Amendment No. 15 which I fully support. The noble Earl has amply outlined the need for an offence of that kind. However,

241
my Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 arise from a real anxiety relating to the purposes of the Bill. Those purposes were well referred to in a speech at Committee stage or Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who emphasised the importance of retaining for the nation not only the objects found but information about them which contributes an essential part of the fabric of our nation's history.
I believe that some archaeologists and others will ask themselves in relation to the Bill: "Is there a risk that we are simply creating a treasure hunter's charter? Are we risking encouraging treasure hunting? Are we risking encouraging treasure hunters and landowners to enter into agreements and then to proceed to conduct treasure hunts and excavate objects and artefacts and remove them from their archaeological contexts?" There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent them doing so unless they do it on scheduled ancient monuments or land which is otherwise protected.
It is important and highly desirable that, when treasure or valuable artefacts are found, they should then be excavated by competent persons who have experience of archaeological excavations. In practice, they would come from museums or archaeological units. My anxiety with Amendment No. 15 is that at the moment if a treasure hunter finds some elements of treasure, there is no obligation on him to report it immediately. The thrust of my Amendment No. 16, is that the finder should report the find as soon as is reasonably practicable. I have in mind the case of the recent Hoxne discovery where the finder, who was operating at the request of the landowner, was not treasure hunting but was using a metal detector; unexpectedly he found gold coins and other valuable objects. He did not proceed further to excavate them in quantity, as he might have done, but through the landowner and the police he reported the matter so that the local museum or archaeological unit was able to conduct an excavation. Those remarkable finds were found in exactly the manner in which they had been packed in Roman times and an enormous amount of information was recovered.
Happily, because it was reported in the appropriate way, it was declared treasure trove and the original finder, the man with the metal detector, working with the consent of the landowner, received the reward of £1.75 million. I believe that by a private arrangement which he entered into with the landowner, he divided it with the landowner.
That is exactly the way in which the system should work, but it would have been most unfortunate if the finder had continued to dig up the whole hoard himself and then reported it to the coroner and handed it over. The same objects would have been recovered, but the information would not have been recovered. One of the most interesting discoveries of recent years would simply have been another important assemblage of gold and other precious objects. Thus there is great desirability that such finds should be reported at once and that the museum or archaeological unit, on behalf of the coroner, should then conduct the excavation.
So Amendment No. 16 has the intention of putting on the face of the Bill the requirement of prompt
242
notification, not merely notification within a space of 14 days. One could well imagine that the finder might stop at nightfall and go back the next morning to dig up more until the whole find had been dug out and then report the matter to the coroner. As the Bill will stand with the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, the finder would be just as well off under the law in doing that as if he reported it more rapidly.
I understand that the code of conduct referred to later in relation to rewards can make clear that it is desirable that people should report finds at once. I understand that the matter can be dealt with under the code of conduct which we shall hear about at a later stage. However, I personally much prefer that under Amendment No. 16 there should be an obligation on the face of the Bill for very prompt notification.
The same point is dealt with in Amendment No. 17. There has to be some assurance for the finder that if he leaves part of the gold and silver and other treasure in the ground and notifies the coroner, he will not be financially worse off through notifying promptly. In the case of the Hoxne find, I am happy to say that the finder received the entire value of the find. But there have been other cases, which we need not go into on this occasion, when the finder has received an award or reward for what he personally found, but the finds subsequently made by the museum—in some cases the British Museum—have not been subject to reward to the original finder.
It is important that finders are given the incentive to report the find at once. That is the purpose of my Amendment No. 17:
"A finder who promptly notifies the coroner … shall … be considered as the finder of all the objects".
I fear that there is then an imperfection in my amendment which makes me feel that it should perhaps not be moved on this occasion but should be moved at Third Reading. I think that I should delete the words,
"recovered which together constitute that treasure, including those objects".
With the deletion of those words, the amendment would read:
"A finder who promptly notifies the coroner … shall … be considered as a finder of all the objects subsequently excavated or otherwise recovered from the findspot by or at the direction of the coroner".
The amendment would then make perfect sense. The reason it does not make sense now is that if some other metal detectorist got into the action between one stage and the next there would be some obscurity. However, we need not go into that more technical point.
I have spoken long enough about these amendments; but they are of significance. Amendment No. 16, as it stands, would be an appropriate amendment to the Bill; although I feel now that it would not be appropriate for me to move Amendment No. 17 in the light of the imperfection that has been pointed out to me.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may first address myself to Amendment No. 15 in order to confirm that the Government fully recognise the importance of early reporting of finds. Clearly there are circumstances in which important archaeological evidence can be lost if reporting is delayed for anything like as much as 14 days. We certainly intend to deal with

243
that issue in the code of practice that will be published under Clause 9. I envisage that one of the important messages that we shall want to get across in the code is the need for full and prompt reporting by finders, and the Secretary of State's intention to take the circumstances of reporting into account in determining the rewards to finders.
I now turn to Amendment No. 16, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. This amendment and the next one raise very important points. From the archaeological point of view it is very important that finds are reported promptly. As has already been mentioned, the 14 days which the Bill allows for reporting may in some circumstances seem excessively generous. It is undoubtedly true that a great deal of archaeological damage could be done if finders set about excavating a site on their own initiative for 14 days after making an initial find without reporting it.
However, we need to make a distinction here. Clause 4 lays down the test for a criminal offence for which there will be quite severe penalties, including the possibility of imprisonment. For that purpose it is essential that the Bill sets out a clear and objective test of what constitutes an offence. The 14-day requirement meets that test. A general requirement in the legislation to report as soon as is practicable is not acceptable for the purposes of defining the nature of the offence. One can easily imagine the arguments that could arise as to the practicability of reporting. As I have said, Clause 4 is concerned only with defining the criminal offence.
When one moves to the issue of rewards to finders, we accept that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to take into account the circumstances of the find and of its reporting in deciding on any reward to the finder. That is, however, a matter for the code of practice rather than the Bill. The Government will consult widely on the contents of the code of practice. Certainly the present intention is that the circumstances of reporting and any evidence of deliberate delay would be a factor which the Secretary of State would take into account in determining the amount of a reward.
Amendment No. 17 tabled by my noble friend Lord Renfrew also raises a very interesting point. I can see that establishing the initial finder's claim to everything that is subsequently found on the site could be a useful way of discouraging inexperienced finders from excavations which destroyed important evidence. I can also see that that could conceivably be a way of discouraging looters, who often descend on a site when word gets round that a find has been made. Arguably their interest would be excluded by this amendment.
However, the circumstances and sequences of finds are very various. In some cases the whole find is identified by the initial finder. In others the initial find leads to a professional excavation which is undertaken by a museum or archaeological unit. In the latter case my noble friend's amendment could have quite serious financial implications for museums if it required them to pay a reward even for material which they themselves excavated after the initial find. Again, this is an interesting point. It is certainly one which should be the subject of consultation during the process of drawing up
244
the Secretary of State's code of practice. But it is not one on which I believe it would be sensible to lay down an absolutely hard and fast rule in the legislation. That is unlikely to take account of the great variety of circumstances that may be encountered. As I said in response to my noble friend's first amendment, it is the code of practice rather than the Bill which will set out the considerations that the Secretary of State will take into account in determining rewards. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Renfrew will feel able to withdraw both his amendments.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, as I indicated to the House, I feel that Amendment No. 17 should be withdrawn. I withdraw Amendment No. 16 with greater reluctance. I have not been entirely swayed by the arguments of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. But in view of her generally very constructive approach to the Bill I would not wish to move an amendment with which she disagreed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 16, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert:
("(4) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, a reasonable excuse for a failure to give a notification within the period mentioned in subsection (2) shall not be a defence where there is a time after the end of that period in relation to which that person cannot show that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to give the notification.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 18 is fairly clear. It reads fairly simply. It provides that even where the two-week period for reporting finds has expired, a finder continues to have a duty to report a find as soon as any reasonable excuse which he may have had for not reporting the find during the specified two weeks is no longer valid. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I share the views that were expressed by the noble Earl and by my noble friend Lord Renfrew earlier on about our admiration of the draftsman, especially over what was achieved in such a short time. But this is the one amendment among so many about which I have a doubt purely from the drafting point of view.
One reason for my doubt arises from the fact that the amendment contains a double negative. I also feel that it could be a bit more clearly worded. We must remember that there will be tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who will have to try to understand this new and very important departure in the law. I ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington if she will ask the draftsman to look again at Amendment No. 18 purely from the point of view of the drafting. I do not complain of the substance.
I have to concede that the draftsman had to bear in mind that in the earlier amendments the expression "wilfully", which was in the Bill as a result of an amendment at Committee stage, has been replaced by the words "without reasonable excuse". Amendment

245
No. 18 attempts to apply one of the effects of that new phrase. All the same, I think that with further thought he might be able to draft it in such a way that the ordinary citizen could understand it a bit more easily.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I regard myself as a very ordinary citizen, and I understand what the amendment says. With no promises, I suggest to the noble Earl who moved this amendment that perhaps we could have another look at it and bring it back at Third Reading, if necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duty of coroner to notify occupier of find of treasure]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause:
Procedure for inquests into treasure
(".—(1) A coroner who is proposing to conduct an inquest by virtue of section (Jurisdiction of coroners) in relation to any find ("a treasure inquest") shall notify his proposal to the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales, according to whether his district is in England or in Wales.
(2) Before proceeding with any treasure inquest a coroner shall take all such reasonable steps as appear to him to be appropriate —

(a) for ascertaining the name and address of the person who at the time of the find was the occupier of the land where the find was made,

(b) for notifying that person about the inquest; and

(c) for securing that that person is afforded an opportunity of examining witnesses at the inquest.

(3) It shall be the duty of a coroner—

(a) before or in the course of a treasure inquest, to take reasonable steps to obtain, from any person notified about the inquest under subsection (2), the particulars available to that person of the names and addresses of other interested persons; and

(b) to take all such reasonable steps as appear to the coroner to be appropriate—

(i) for notifying the interested persons whose names and addresses he has obtained about the inquest, and

(ii) for securing that every interested person notified is afforded an opportunity of examining witnesses at the inquest.

(4) The references in subsection (3), in relation to a treasure inquest, to interested persons are references to every person who—

(a) occupied or had an interest in the land where the find was made at the time when it was made or has had such an interest at any time since the making of the find; and

(b) appears to the coroner to be likely, by reason of his occupation or interest, to be concerned with the matters to be dealt with at the inquest.

(5) A coroner shall not conclude the proceedings at a treasure inquest until he has complied with subsection (3).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lady Trumpington I should like to move Amendment No. 19, which substitutes the new Clause 5 for the original Clause 5. The clause concerns the procedures which are followed by coroners in conducting inquests into treasure and there are a number of significant differences.
First, the new clause introduces a new provision requiring the coroner to notify the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales of any find. That is a significant step. Those museums can be relied upon to notify local museums, where appropriate, and steps can
246
be taken to ensure that proper professional advice—historical or archaeological advice—is available to the coroner.
Secondly, the new clause, like the old one, requires the coroner to take all reasonable steps to identify the occupier of the land where any find was made and to notify that person; and now also to give him or her the opportunity to examine witnesses at the inquest. That is a further element.
Thirdly, the new clause requires the coroner, and no longer the occupier, to establish from whom the occupier holds the land—the freeholder or the head leaseholder—and then to give that person the same rights at the inquest as the occupier. In that way we cart ensure that the occupier and the person from whom he holds the land are aware of the find and are able to participate in the inquest.
Noble Lords will see that in the interests of ensuring that landlords are informed of finds on their land, the amendment places the duty of notification on the coroner rather than on the occupier. One interesting effect of that is that, if an occupier were to refuse to co-operate with the coroner and refuse to make details of his landlord available, he would be guilty of contempt of court. I hope that that will be seen as a significant strengthening of the Bill's provision in respect of landowners' interests, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was very keen to emphasise at the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved, as amendments to Amendment No. 19, Amendments Nos. 20 to 28:
Line 8, leave out ("such").
Line 8, leave out ("as appear to him to be appropriate").
Line 9, leave out ("for ascertaining") and insert ("to ascertain").
Line 12, leave out ("for notifying") and insert ("to notify").
Line 13, leave out ("for securing") and insert ("to secure").
Line 20, leave out ("all such").
Line 20, leave out ("as appear to the coroner to be appropriate").
Line 22, leave out ("for notifying") and insert ("to notify").
Line 24, leave out ("for securing") and insert ("to secure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to these amendments which are amendments to the new Clause 5. I should like to point out at the outset that we very much appreciate that a considerable effort has been made in drafting the amendment dealing with the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Lytton at Committee stage. Unfortunately, my noble friend is not able to be present today but the amendments to it stand in both our names. I should also like to say that our amendments have the support of the Country Landowners' Association, whose 50,000 members are often at the sharp end of controversies over finds of what in the future will be defined as "treasure".
As my noble friend said in Committee, the landowners are often left to deal with the consequences of significant finds at the site. They may have to take on the site responsibilities and management at a later date. They have another locus as well in that the find may well belong to the landowner as he or she may have an opportunity to prove title at an inquest. Those legitimate rights must be recognised in the Bill; otherwise we face

247
a damaging free-for-all, which in the long run cannot be in the interests of archaeological research and certainly does not respect the rights of those who own the land on which finders may be prospecting.
Therefore, I welcome the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which requires the coroner of an inquest to obtain from the occupier the name and address of the landowner and to take steps to notify that landowner of the inquest and to give him or her a chance to participate in the inquest, including the opportunity of proving title to the find.
But here I find the wording of the amendment a little woolly and subjective. The requirement in new Clause 5(2) and 5(3) (b) to,
"take all such reasonable steps as appear to him to be appropriate"
cannot be tested and so do not place an effective requirement in practice on the coroner to try to contact the landowner. Perhaps the words have been put in because of the Government's fears about putting additional demands on coroners, but I believe that the Bill is in danger of becoming misleading by introducing a requirement that is not truly a requirement at all. The Government might have said, "Okay, we agree in principle that coroners should inform the landowner but we are not prepared to take steps to ensure that it happens in practice". But perhaps I am doing the Government a disservice and what they want is in fact what I want. I suggest that what I propose in this series of amendments would be what we are both looking for.
I do not seek in any way to alter the basic meaning of the provision. I seek only to make clear that this is what we all want. Therefore, I hope that the amendments tabled in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Lytton will find favour with both the promoters of the Bill and the Government. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I believe that these amendments would strengthen the clause and remove anxieties. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, intimated, we are probably all of the same mind. On that basis, I personally believe that we should accept them.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I believe, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, that we are all of one mind on this matter. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, are well taken. It is the intention that landowners as well as occupiers should be represented at the inquest. If these amendments make that clearer, I am sure that they will be acceptable. I personally support them.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 20 to 28, as amendments to Amendment No. 19, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Inquests]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 29:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I suspected that this would happen when I moved Amendment No. 14. Accordingly, I simply beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Suspected treasure]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. This clause is unnecessary. Under the Bill as originally drafted it overlapped in any event with Clause 2. The effect of Clause 7 would have been to deem non-treasure to be treasure until the contrary was established at an inquest.
However, our intention was to invalidate any transaction taking place before a find had been formally declared treasure by an inquest. That can be achieved under the existing law. Under existing law the police can prosecute someone for stealing an object which was treasure, even if it had not at the time of the theft been declared treasure at an inquest. That has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal. To that extent, therefore, Clause 7 is not only unnecessary but rather misleading. Obviously, what we need to do is to make use of the existing law. We do not want to have double law-making. In that connection, one should mention that Amendment No. 8 will be very helpful and help to achieve simplification still further.
Another effect of Clause 7 would have been to introduce the possibility that finders could be guilty of stealing objects which turned out not to be treasure and were therefore probably finders' property in any case. But it is agreed that that would be unacceptable.
Finally, I should like to mention the link between this clause and market overt. To the extent that the clause was aimed at invalidating transactions under market overt, it will become unnecessary in any event because of the market overt Bill which was agreed by your Lordships and is now about to be considered by another place. But I return to the amendment, which is to leave out Clause 7. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I can intervene briefly to say that I completely endorse the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton regarding the seriousness with which theft of treasure should be regarded and the importance of recognising that under the existing law it is a criminal offence, even at the stage before a find has been formally identified as treasure at an inquest. That, and the risk of prosecution where transactions take place before an inquest, are again matters on which we intend to give guidance in the Secretary of State's code of practice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Ex gratia awards]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 8 and insert the following new clause:
Rewards
(".—(1) Where there is a proposal for treasure that has vested in the Crown under section 1 to be transferred from the Crown to any museum, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to determine, in such manner as he thinks fit—

249

(a) the market value of the treasure to which the proposal relates;

(b) whether he requires an amount by way of reward to be paid by the museum before effect can be given to the proposal; and

(c) the amount of any such reward, the person or persons to whom it is to be payable and, if it is to be payable to more than one person, the manner in which it should be shared between them.

(2) The total amount determined under this section to be payable by way of reward in respect of any treasure shall not exceed the amount determined to be the market value of the treasure.
(3) The persons who shall be eligible to receive a reward determined under this section, or a share of such a reward, are—

(a) the finder and any other persons involved in finding the treasure,

(b) the occupier at the time of the find of the land where the treasure was found, and

(c) the persons who had interests in that land at that time or have had such interests at any time since the making of the find.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in making any determination under this section with respect to any matter, to have regard to any provision about that matter in the code of practice for the time being in force under section 9.
(5) This section applies in relation to treasure that has vested in the franchisee for any place as it applies in relation to treasure that has vested in the Crown, but only if the franchisee has asked the Secretary of State to make a determination under subsection (1) with respect to that treasure.
(6) A determination under this section shall not confer any right enforceable against a museum or the Secretary of State to the payment of the whole or any part of any reward.
(7) In this section "franchisee" has the same meaning as in section 1.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an important new clause because it deals with the subject of rewards and is so slanted—if I may use that word—that it encourages people to behave properly when they find anything.
The original Clause 8 simply provided discretion for the Secretary of State to make ex gratia awards to finders, owners or occupiers, taking account of all the circumstances. The effect of the new clause is to provide the Secretary of State with more comprehensive and explicit powers. Where a museum may wish to acquire treasure, the Secretary of State is given a duty to determine its market value. There is, of course, already in existence a committee of experts, known as the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee, which advises the Secretary of State on valuations. The Secretary of State must also determine whether any reward should be paid by the museum, and if so, the size and destination of any reward. The new clause, importantly, provides that in no circumstances may the reward exceed the market value of the treasure.
Subsection (3) provides that finders, occupiers and others with an interest in the land where the find was made are all eligible to receive some or part of the reward. "Eligible" is a valuable word. It does not say that they will receive it; but it opens the door very wide. Subsection (4) provides that in deciding on the payment of any reward the Secretary of State must have regard to his code of practice —we shall come to that on Clause 9.
Subsection (3) may cause noble Lords some concern if it gives the impression that rewards will normally be shared between finders, occupiers and owners. That is not our intention. Subsection (3) simply defines the
250
legal extent of eligibility for a reward—as did the previous Clause 8. Policy on the payment of rewards will be set out in the Secretary of State's code of practice. We would expect that where finders behave properly and report finds promptly, they will continue to receive the full value of their finds, as they do now. I beg to move.
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, Amendment No. 32:
Line 17, at end insert ("other than a trespasser").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lytton, is an amendment to Amendment No. 31, moved by my noble friend Lord Perth, and provides that trespassers shall not be entitled to rewards. No doubt it will be argued that finders who are trespassers will not be inclined to report finds if they think they may be denied a reward. However, we must bear in mind two basic principles.
First, it is surely not the place of government or this House to be engaged in the production of legislation which actively and consciously rewards persons for unlawful behaviour. That is a primrose path. Secondly —here I wish to engage the pragmatism of the promoters of the Bill —my amendment will not so much discourage declarations as encourage prospective finders to seek permission of owners to enter on to land to look for archaeological finds. That surely is the behaviour that we are seeking to encourage. It will also help to establish the provenance of finds and fix their archaeological context.
I acknowledge that in the new Clause 8 my noble friend Lord Perth and the Government for the first time recognise the legitimate interests of the occupier and the landowner, for which we are extremely grateful. I shall therefore be interested to hear the Minister's response as to how the Government justify payment of rewards to those who trespass or, indeed, the return of artefacts to finders rather than to landowners or occupiers when they are not wanted by museums. At the least I hope that the Minister will include in her reply a detailed indication of how the Government's code of practice is intended to deal with trespassers when determining rewards and how they should be shared out.
It will be helpful if the Government: can confirm their intention that the code of practice to be published will make clear that there should be specific and strong reasons why a trespasser should receive a reward. To be honest, I cannot envisage justification for a reward being made to a finder when trespassing. But if the Government believe that such reward is justified, I should like to hear that the code of practice will set out the circumstances which merit such a reward and any circumstances where rewards will not be paid to trespassers. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in regard to the two amendments I commend to your Lords hi ps Amendment No. 31, which sets out a clear procedure by which the Secretary of State will take various matters into account. He will establish the market value of the treasure; whether it requires any amount to be paid by

251
the museum; whether the museum is to retain the treasure once it is established as such, and the apportionment of the reward to be paid.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, acknowledged, there is a modification to the existing situation in relation to treasure trove. Now, not only the finder and those involved in finding the treasure but also the occupier and other persons with interests in the land —essentially the owners —may be taken into consideration when rewards are being established. But the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, was asking for some justification for the payment of rewards to persons who find treasure when they have no entitlement to be on the piece of land where they find it.
I remind your Lordships, though I am sure everyone is well aware, that such is indeed the circumstance with the present working of treasure trove. It is not in any sense or manner a new concept which is being introduced into the Bill; the existing concept will continue to apply. That is an important point which your Lordships may wish to take into account.
The overriding interest—the heritage interest—is that finds should be reported. That is the crucial point. As I said earlier this evening, it is preferable that finds be reported rapidly so that proper investigations can be made of the context of those finds. Unless one gives to the finder—whether or not that finder is a trespasser —an incentive, that finder is unlikely to report the find. It is therefore imperative that the Secretary of State recommends or rules that the finder receives some sort of reward.
It is to be regretted when individuals trespass on land. I would have been happy for the Bill to contain those provisions which earlier drafts contained, including an offence of aggravated trespass which would impose more severe penalties on trespassers who trespass for the purpose of seeking treasure. But the remedy which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, is seeking will come in the code of practice where it is to be expected that in some circumstances at any rate trespassers who are wilfully trespassing against the wishes of the occupier or landowner are likely to receive a diminished award. I have no doubt that the code of practice will take note of that. But other speakers at an earlier stage pointed out that it is possible to be a trespasser without even being aware of it if you are following a path which then peters out and you go off the line of the path. It is imperative that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise his judgment in these matters.
I quite understand that it is vexatious to landowners when persons who trespass may qualify for a reward, or part of one, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, will realise that, first, this provision is in keeping with the way the present treasure trove arrangements operate and, secondly, that the need to encourage finders to report is the overriding interest in this matter. So I oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, as my name is set down against the amendment—and I am very glad to be here this afternoon—I have been given an unexpected opportunity to cover one or two points. With great
252
respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I cannot accept that the existing concept under treasure trove is correct. As we are setting about amending it because it manifestly operates poorly in other respects, it is only right and proper that we should remedy it in the manner proposed in Amendment No. 32.
I do not believe that there can be any excuses for wrong doing. I find it very difficult, as I have said earlier in the passage of this Bill, to accept that it is possible to be an unknowing participant with a metal detector. I shall leave the point at that. People know very well what is allowed and what is not. We have rehearsed this ground already and I cannot accept that particular point.
My next point relates to common courtesy, and linked with that is the broader interest of public morals which I certainly do not believe should be eroded. I do not believe it to be acceptable that such an erosion should be enshrined in legislation—not one jot or iota. Beyond that I feel that the nation's interest is served by a common endeavour. Unless the interests of all relevant parties are taken into account then the chances are that the model which we are seeking to create in legislation will fail in one or more respects. I believe that legitimate access to land as distinct from that which is not legitimate, needs to be sorted out. I would like to see that done on the face of the Bill. I am not happy to leave the matter for a code of practice at a later date.
We must have some indication from the Minister as to what is intended in that respect. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Walpole will decide what he is going to do about these matters, but whatever he decides, some time before the end of our deliberations on this Bill these matters have to be sorted out in this House. I support Amendment No. 32. I would also like to congratulate in particular my noble friend Lord Perth on the amended Clause 8 which considerably improves matters.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall be very brief. We on this side of the House would like to support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. We understand the feelings of indignation about trespass which have been present historically. The matter is better dealt with in its own right. I am sure that the real priority is as stated—that is to say, that we should encourage the reporting of what is found. There is a delicate balance of what is called "eligibilities" in this Bill. This clause gets as close as is practical to achieving that. The code of practice will be very important. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment knowing that we have all listened with great sympathy to the basic principle behind what he says. I hope that he will join us on this matter.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. I believe that the noble Earl produced a red herring at one stage when he spoke about an unwitting trespasser with a metal detector. There is nothing at all in the Bill about metal detectors. We are talking about a possible, unwitting trespasser who comes across treasure trove. We know that there have been cases of people just kicking into something and finding artefacts. We are not necessarily talking about people with metal

253
detectors. There is obviously a major problem here and one which should be settled in the course of the advice which is given rather than on the face of the Bill. If satisfactory assurances are given on that we should not agree to this amendment, but should rely on the commitments of the Secretary of State.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to seek clarification of Amendment No. 31. I refer in particular to subsection (1) (b) which refers to rewards payable by the museum. Noble Lords may wonder why I should be interested in such things. For 35 years I have lived in the deep south of the county of Wiltshire which is an exciting archaeological area. More especially, I have been happily associated with the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum for almost as long as I have lived in the area.
As regards that institution I have been cast in the role not of archaeologist or scholar, but of fund raiser. When I saw this amendment I began to wonder—and this is the point on which I seek clarification—whether whoever shall have authority in these matters will withhold artefacts or treasure which have been offered to a museum on the grounds that a reward cannot be paid by the museum because of a lack of funds. I hope that I make sense. It is not clear to me from where this money is to come. If it is not to come from the museum will that prevent the museum from receiving the treasure or the artefacts which are the subject of this clause?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 31, I confirm that we are broadly in agreement with the noble Earl on the question of rewards to finders. As I made clear at Committee stage, we recognise the importance of encouraging the reporting of finds. We need to ensure that adequate incentives to finders are preserved under any new arrangements. We also want to discourage wrong behaviour. While there may be circumstances in which some reward to occupiers and owners will be appropriate, we certainly want the legislation to provide for that possibility.
As I have said, we are fully aware of the importance of retaining the incentive to finders to report and surrender treasure to the Crown. It is our present view that in the normal case where finders operate within the law with the full knowledge and agreement of occupiers or owners of land, and report their finds fully and promptly, they should continue to receive rewards reflecting the full market value of their finds.
I am not sure whether I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. If I have not, perhaps I shall be able to do so in the latter part of my speech. Indeed, I now believe that the answer is that the reward must come from the museum. It is possible that a museum will not have the resources to buy a find and that it will have to be returned to the finder or landowner. I hope that that answers the point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, explained, the amendment in his name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendment No. 32, would have the effect of placing an absolute bar on the payment of any reward to a trespasser. Again, I have to say that I do not think this is appropriate for the Bill. The policy to be adopted by
254
the Secretary of State on the payment of rewards is a matter for the code of practice rather than the formal provisions of the Bill. I have no wish to belittle the importance of trespass as an issue to be taken into account, but I do not think it is safe to say that trespass alone and in itself should in all circumstances constitute an absolute bar to the payment of any reward.
This is exactly the sort of issue on which there needs to be further consultation with all interested parties. The Secretary of State intends to undertake such consultation before drawing up his code of practice. That will provide the opportunity for the interests which the noble Lord and the noble Earl represent to stress the importance they attach to the issue of trespass in this context and make specific proposals for its treatment in the code of practice. I am sure it can be said with absolute certainty that the code will need to stress the importance that the Secretary of State attaches to proper and legal behaviour on the part of finders.
Perhaps I may also advise the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the Bill goes much further than previous legislation in recognising all interests, including those of landowners, which were not previously recognised at all. On the basis of what I and my noble friends have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that considered reply. I shall certainly consider it carefully. I was particularly heartened that she felt that it would be proper to give further consideration to the matter when drawing up the code of practice. Obviously, I reserve my right to return to the issue at a later stage but, for the time being, with permission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 32, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 31 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Government guidance about treasure]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("may publish") and insert ("shall prepare, keep under review and from time to time revise").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the original Clause 9 provided for the publication of guidance on treasure. Amendments Nos. 34, 36, 38 and 39 considerably strengthen that provision. First, they impose on the Secretary of State a duty to produce a code of practice. The previous provision was discretionary. He will have to keep the code under review and, as appropriate, revise it.
Secondly, Amendment No. 35 sets out more clearly that the code must lay down principles and practice for both offering finds to museums, and determining rewards. I touched on the latter issue in speaking to new Clause 8.
Finally, Amendment No. 39 provides that the Secretary of State must consult interested persons before preparing or revising the code of practice. Such consultation would certainly include the major interests such as the National Council of Metal Detectorists and

255
the Country Landowners' Association as well as the archaeological community. The code will not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—in other words, the code will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Secretary of State will, of course, be under a duty to publish his code and to have regard to it in determining rewards. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a useful strengthening of the provision for guidance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert:
("(1A) The code shall set out the principles and practice which the Secretary of State is proposing to follow—

(a) when he considers whether or not treasure should be offered to a museum or to the finder or to any other person; and

(b) when he makes a determination under section (Rewards).").

Page 3, line 32, leave out ("Any such") and insert ("The").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 32, after ("who") insert ("search for or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 39 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 4 and insert:
("(2A) Before preparing the code or revising it the Secretary of State shall consult such of the persons appearing to him to be interested in the matters to which the code is to relate as he thinks appropriate.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the code and of any proposed revision of the code before Parliament; and neither the code nor any revision of the code shall come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2C) The Secretary of State shall publish the code in force under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of all persons interested.
(2D) Where the Secretary of State considers that the code should make different provision for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, or should otherwise make different provision for treasure found in different areas, he may if he thinks fit prepare the code as two or more separate codes each applying to a particular area; and, if he does, the requirements of this section shall apply separately in relation to each code.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Application of Act to Northern Ireland
(".—(1) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland—

(a) in section (Jurisdiction of coroners) (1)—

(i) for the words "section 30 of the Coroners Act 1988" there shall be substituted the words "section 33 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959";

(ii) the words from "and anything" to "practice etc.)") shall be omitted;

(b) in section (Procedure for inquests into treasure) (1), for the words from "British Museum" to the end there shall be substituted the words "Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland".
(2) Accordingly, in section 33 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (inquest on treasure trove), for "treasure trove" there shall be substituted "treasure".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is a new clause. The Bill, as it stands, applies only to England and Wales, but the combined effect of Amendments Nos. 42 and 45 would be to apply it to Northern Ireland. The method of doing so is rather technical, but I should explain the background of which I have been advised.
The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has long been the agent of the Treasury in administering treasure trove in Northern Ireland. Since the most recent agency agreement between the two was drawn up in 1977, nine treasure trove inquests have been held in Ulster. Once the Bill is enacted, the role of the Treasury and its agency agreement with the DoE (Northern Ireland) will lapse and it will be replaced by one between the DoE (Northern Ireland) and the Department of National Heritage. This is purely an internal governmental matter—a way of sorting out administration. The substance of the current practice in Northern Ireland will not be changed.
It is pleasant to note that there is already a requirement in Northern Ireland to report treasure trove within 14 days, which is in line with the provisions of the Bill. The wider arrangements which have long existed in Northern Ireland for the reporting of non-treasure trove finds will not be affected in any way. It is surely an agreeable thought that not only will the Bill, if the amendment is accepted, apply to Northern Ireland, but the present law and practice there will be embodied in this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Consequential amendments
(".—(1) The following amendments shall have effect in relation to any object found after the commencement of section 1.
(2) In section 54(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (saving for rights in relation to treasure trove) for "in relation to treasure trove" there shall be substituted "under the Treasure Act 1994".
(3) In section 12(8) of the Historic Monuments Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (finding of archaeological objects)—

(a) for the words "treasure trove", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted "any treasure within the meaning of the Treasure Act 1994"; and

(b) for those words, in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted "such treasure".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment to tidy up, as it were, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act in terms of its only reference to treasure trove. That comes in Section 54(3) which states:
"Nothing in this section shall affect any right of the Crown in relation to treasure trove".
The new clause simply brings that wording into line with the provisions of the Bill and makes a comparable modification in relation to the Historic Monuments Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.
It is perhaps of interest to point out, if I may, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that even under the present provisions relating to scheduled ancient monuments, if

257
a finder finds treasure or, as at present, treasure trove, on such a monument, that finder is indeed the finder, and is the person who is currently eligible for reward. While I take the point made by the noble Earl that it is in many ways inimical that a trespasser receive reward, it is even more inimical that someone who is treasure hunting on a scheduled ancient monument should receive reward. Yet there is an overriding principle that it is important that finders be encouraged to report their finds. But perhaps I go a little beyond the scope of this minor consequential amendment which I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Commencement]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("force") to end of line 5 and insert ("on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes and for different provisions.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment changes the provision for the coming into force of the Bill. The Bill, as introduced, provided that the Bill as a whole came into force after three months. This new provision will give the Secretary of State power to fix a date, and, if necessary, to fix different dates for different parts of the Bill. That I understand is necessary to ensure that the Bill's extension of the concept of treasure does not come into force until a code of practice on payment of rewards has been approved by Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is our view that it is inappropriate for the main provisions of the Bill in particular the vesting in the Crown of treasure falling within the extended definition in Clause 2, to come into force until a code of practice has been published and approved under Clause 9. It is essential that the principles upon which rewards and compensation will be paid are in place, following debate in Parliament, before any occupier or owner of land faces the possibility that finds which might previously have been his—that is, finds not previously falling within the definition of "treasure trove"—are claimed by the Crown. Otherwise, there is clearly a possibility that the Bill's provisions would be regarded as expropriation, and as such might be regarded as an infringement of the European Convention on human rights.
That does mean that, even if the Bill is enacted this Session, it is likely to be some months before it is brought fully into force. It is our intention to bring Clause 9 into force as soon as possible and then to produce the code. We will aim to do that as quickly as possible; and I would certainly hope that it is a process which can be completed by the end of the year. But, as I have said, it is our view that this is a delay which is unavoidable: it would simply not be possible to extend the definition of "treasure" on the basis of the present payment of rewards to finders, without infringing the interests of other parties.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 45:
258
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("extends to England and Wales only") and insert ("does not extend to Scotland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 46:
Leave out ("and to amend the law relating to treasure trove").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to reflect the fact that the Bill now substitutes the new concept of treasure for the old concept of treasure trove rather than merely amending the latter. I have almost come to the end of my remarks, but I wish to say two things. I rejoice in hearing the noble Baroness express the hope that the Bill might become law by the end of the year. I hope that that is fulfilled. It is splendid news.
I am not sure that this is in order, but I am going to do it. I wish to thank all those who have taken part in the debate on the Bill and the officials who have made it possible for us to reach this stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [General purposes and powers]:
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. The purpose behind the two amendments—I shall call them one from now on—is to try to redress what I regard as an imbalance that will exist if the Bill reaches the statute book. Under the 1949 Act, national park authorities have a statutory duty to promote the conservation of the countryside for public enjoyment. That duty will be carried through into the Bill. However the national parks have no duty so far as concerns the promotion of the socio-economic well-being of the parks or those who live and work in the parks. What they do have however under Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 is a duty to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas. But a duty to have due regard is not the same as having a duty to promote. So all that I am seeking to do is to achieve a level playing field.
The need for the change is brought about by the fact that under the Bill all national parks will of course be freestanding. They will no longer be just an arm of a county council. They are and, of course will be, the planning authority. There will be a new duty imposed upon them to produce a structure plan. That structure plan will have considerable and far reaching implications for the indigenous populations and businesses within the park areas.
I am aware that the question of socio-economic well-being has been raised before and is discussed in Professor Edwards's report. The Government's original argument was that the concept of promoting

259
socio-economic interests was not appropriate, because the national park authorities could not deliver. But the Bill is all about making national park authorities stronger and independent. As I have said, they are the planning authority, and they will be responsible for the structure plans. As such, they are not merely well-placed to promote such interests, their actions are bound to influence local interests. For that reason, I do not believe that the amendment is outside the Bill's scope. The new powers have been created for the national park authorities, and the amendment is necessary to redress the balance. The duty to promote should develop through the national parks themselves or through their co-operation with the other enabling agencies. That point was accepted in the Edwards Report. The difference is that this amendment will make it a statutory duty and not simply a policy objective, as recommended by Professor Edwards.
The statutory duty should not clash with the duty of the parks to promote conservation, and nor would I want it to. I believe that we should look to the parks to balance such demands. I accept that that is not always easy but they will be in a unique position to do so. I wonder who else can if they cannot. But, inevitably, extra powers mean extra responsibilities.
I also wish to point out that the amendment will not give the park authorities the duty to promote agriculture and forestry. I say that because under Section 37 of the 1968 Act those two enterprises are linked with the economic and social interests of rural areas. There would, of course, still be a duty for the authorities to have due regard to them but in this amendment the duty to promote rests solely with economic and social interests. There remains the need to bridge the gap between the park authorities and those who live and work within. There is a need for closer understanding.
My noble friend's Bill can achieve that essential objective if the duties to promote are seen to be shared in an even-handed way between the duty to look after and promote the countryside and to enhance public enjoyment. However, it must incorporate the well-being of those who live and work within. The amendment seeks simply to do that. It seeks to give confidence to the inhabitants of the parks that their authority will have a statutory responsibility to promote their well-being in an even-handed way, together with the well-being of the countryside and the visitors to the park. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for moving the amendment. The problem is that the Bill does not address, and it was not designed to address, the conclusions of the Edwards Report on what national parks should be about. It was designed for a limited purpose. For that reason, if the noble Earl wishes to debate what national parks are about and what they are meant to do we can go on all night. However, if he is saying simply that he would like to insert a particular responsibility on national park authorities as in this amendment, without going across the whole range, I personally would not agree with the amendment. There
260
is a debate to be taken at a future stage about the purposes of national parks and what they are about but it is not in the context of this Bill.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment for presentational reasons. I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, it is common ground to us all that unless the inhabitants of the park believe that the existence of the national park is for the benefit of everyone but themselves they will regard it as their enemy and will not co-operate. It is important that the inhabitants should believe that there is an even-handedness. Whether the parks exist for conservation reasons, tourism and so forth, there should be a provision in the Bill indicating that there is also an interest in the people who live in them. Therefore, it is for a psychological reason that I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I first wish to declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. In that capacity, I declare a certain unease at the thrust of the noble Earl's amendment. I take his point that to have due regard to something is a direction in the legislation not to overlook it. It is a gentle reminder to keep an eye on that something and not to forget or ignore it. But the duty to promote is far more peremptory and pro-active. It is a transitive, infinitive verb in the active voice, and it feels like it too.
I wish to be numbered among those who believe that this Bill is not the best place for providing for the purposes and duties of the authorities. After all, the Government have promised to bring forward legislation and I cannot help feeling that that would be the appropriate time and vehicle for the debate to take place. The National Parks Review Panel looked carefully and in considerable detail at the subject of national parks' statutory purposes and the socio-economic duty. After much consultation it found that:
"The time has come for our own national park authorities to be given a clearer role to support the social and economic welfare of the local populations but only in such a way that the environmental quality of the parks is sustained and, where possible, enhanced".
The panel devised a means of achieving that by establishing a role for national park authorities as enablers, supporting the executive agencies. That is the right action at the present time. The noble Earl's amendment seems to imply that the national park authorities should be given some stern tasks to accomplish because Satan still finds mischief for idle hands. I assure the noble Earl that the national park authorities will have plenty to occupy them and that we should debate exactly what their duties should be in a context difference from this Bill. I hope that he may be persuaded not to press his amendment.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, anyone who lives, farms and works in a national park will be grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment. It reflects the anxiety which was raised in Committee by the reply given by my noble friend Lord Arran to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The amendment was eventually carried by the Committee. The matter that

261
causes anxiety are the words used by my noble friend in reply in col. 1232 of Hansard of 31st March. He stated that, as regards giving advice to the committees on the representation and the interests that they should bear in mind, he could only give clear guidance which would in no way be binding. That is the reason why the amendment should be put into the Bill at this stage.
[t is a terrible fact that today people who live and work in the countryside are finding themselves less and less in sympathy with so many of the countryside bodies. People are anxious about the attitude of English Nature, which appears to be becoming more averse to the presence of grazing animals anywhere on land with which it is involved. I realise that English Nature has a particular narrow scientific base but it is rapidly becoming out of sympathy with those who live and work in the countryside. Almost the same can be said of the Countryside Commission. After all, we know that its real interest is to promote and to protect the landscape and various recreational interests. It is a sad fact but the time has come when the people who live and work in the national parks should be given the proper protection for their economic and farming interests, which the amendment would provide. I have much pleasure in supporting it.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I believe that it would be unwise to proceed with the amendment proposed because this Bill has a very narrow focus. It seems to me that the amendment takes the matter much wider than the aims which the Bill is designed to achieve.
Clearly we are concerned that the Bill shall proceed to enactment at an early date and it has an enormous amount to commend it. The Minister indicated at an earlier stage that the Government had very much in mind the introduction of a Bill dealing with many other matters which require to be dealt with in the context of national parks. One of the items which clearly requires to be dealt with is the purpose and duty of those running the national parks, including the points mentioned by the noble Earl when he moved the amendment, for which I feel great sympathy. However, I do not believe that it is a good idea to seek to include this provision at this stage. That will not assist the early passage of the Bill which I, and I am sure everybody else, is anxious to achieve. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I recognise the seriousness of my noble friend in introducing this new issue to the debate at this late stage. But I am extremely reluctant to make detailed comments on it because this is simply not the right moment at which to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we shall be here all night if we continue with this debate. It is true that the topic needs discussing, but as other noble Lords on all sides of the House have said, and as has been stated clearly on Second Reading, the Bill has a single simple purpose which we all wish to carry forward.
On Second Reading, the Minister made clear that at the right moment, those larger issues will be debated. We cannot possibly pick out one of many issues and, as
262
the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, spend the rest of the evening discussing it. I do not believe that this is the right place for such an amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is right. There is some sympathy with the feelings behind the amendment and, indeed, if I lived in the national parks, I should feel comfortable with the amendment. But it depends on what is meant by some of the terms. On these Benches, we feel that this is a simple Bill with a simple purpose and that this is not the right place for the amendment.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment. When I had an avuncular and recent interest in the Countryside Commission and national parks, one thing which worried me day after day was the question of trying to keep a balance between local and national interests I reached the conclusion that something was needed and those feelings were relayed to the Edwards review—the National Parks Review Panel—which spent an enormous amount of time considering that issue. It concluded that the appropriate role of park authorities is to support others in fostering the social and economic role of the park communities in ways which are compatible with the purposes for which National Parks are designated.
I have been persuaded that that is the way forward. I have been persuaded also that this is not the place at which to consider the amendment in view of the fact that the Government are to allow us time later to discuss issues relating to the Bill. Surely that is the time to get our teeth into the various details.
There has been an enormous amount of outside criticism about the inability of some parks to maintain a balance. To some extent, that has been a fair criticism. However, in the past five or six years there has been an anxious attempt by the national park authorities to put their house in order on that matter. They have an extremely difficult job because they have to balance issues on an almost daily basis. Therefore, I put that forward in their favour. I recognise that there is a need to bring about a better machinery for maintaining that balance.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, virtually all the points that I should like to have made have been made much more eloquently by other noble Lords. However, I should like to add my support to the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I believe that it is vitally important that the point should be flagged in the context of the Bill; I would have added my name to the amendment, but I did not do so because I had not expected to be here.
One particular point referred to was the way in which the Bill attaches the structure plan role to national park authorities. Planning is a crucial lever in promoting the social and economic well-being of an area. I felt that the job would be done on a piecemeal basis, if those planning powers were divorced from that concomitant duty to deal with the social and economic well-being of the area; in other words, the point was at risk of being left out of account altogether.

263
I am glad that there has been a debate on that matter. The powers and duties must be built in parallel and not piecemeal. The Bill alters the situation with regard to the structure plan role and it is right that the other roles which follow from that should be taken into account also. However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is not appropriate to amend the Bill.
In particular, I relate to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent; namely, that it is seen that there is a slightly other-worldly approach with all the agencies really saying to those who live and work in national parks, "This is how you are going to do things". It may well be that that is appropriate in the national interest. I must declare an interest because I am a farmer in a national park, although I do not live there. I believe that there must be a greater movement towards taking into account the interests of those who have had national park designation laid over their interests. If they feel that they are part of that and part of the national park process, their interests must be taken into account. It cannot be left that preservation of the landscape and the interests of a wider and often distant general public as regards park recreation take joint first place, with everything else coming a very poor third. Therefore, I support the principle behind Amendment No. 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I have listened very carefully indeed to the arguments put forward for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel and to the other arguments which your Lordships have put forward this evening on the amendment. Indeed, it has raised much debate and discussion.
The relationship between the purposes for which the parks were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the social and economic needs of the people who live and work in them was extensively discussed by the National Parks Review Panel, which heard a wide range of views.
As they go about the business of managing their areas, the national park authorities will clearly have to recognise the importance of the needs and interests of the people who live and work in the parks. Each new authority will be required to prepare a management plan in which it will set out its proposals for the administration of its area. These plans will be subject to wide public consultation and will therefore provide one opportunity for local people to make their views known. We also intend to advise the new authorities that they should set up formal arrangements for ensuring that the views of local people are heard.
But the new authorities must not forget the purposes for which the parks were designated. The review panel heard evidence from some people who felt that the national parks should have a third purpose, to promote the economic and social interests of their local communities, which would be the effect of my noble friend's amendment, while others felt that the inclusion of such a strongly worded duty would divert from the main purposes of the national parks and confuse the role
264
of the new authorities with that of the local authorities and those agencies, such as the Rural Development Commission and the Welsh agencies, which are already taking action to further the economic and social development of rural areas.
After carefully considering all the views put to it, the panel decided that it was not appropriate to add a third purpose, but instead recommended that the National Park authorities should support the appropriate agencies in fostering the social and economic well-being of the communities within the parks. I have to say that I am very sympathetic to the reasons underlying the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel; but I do not believe that it is a matter for the Bill; indeed, other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have indicated as much.
The Bill is simply concerned with the establishment of independent authorities for each of the 10 National Parks in England and Wales. Under the Countryside Act 1968, local authorities are already required to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas. Under Clause 2(2) of the Bill, the new National Park authorities will also be bound by the same duty.
As I made clear when we debated the Bill at Second Reading, it is the Government's intention to introduce further legislation to update National Park purposes and to clarify the National Park authorities' duty to take full account of the economic and social needs of local communities. It is a matter which merits wider debate and discussion and so I believe it is not appropriate for the matter to be dealt with as part of the Bill at this stage.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions on this important topic. As I said on Second Reading, my Bill has only one objective—that is, to set up new authorities to run all the National Parks. I made it quite clear at that early stage that it does not affect the National Park statutory purposes and associated duty. I do not believe that my Private Member's Bill is the right place to resolve those other matters.
The Government have made clear their intention to legislate on the subject. My noble friend Lord Arran made clear during Second Reading that, in reconsidering and updating the National Park purposes, the Government would be guided by the spirit of the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel. The House has also been reminded of what those recommendations were. The panel considered the question in detail. Apart from recommending redefining the National Park purposes, it said, on the question of the duty, that National Park authorities should play a supportive role which would be,
"compatible with the purposes for which National Parks are designated".
I consider the purposes, the duty and the relationship between them to be inextricably linked.
Naturally, such a complex and important matter merits a full and wide ranging debate within the context of a government Bill. I do not believe that it is appropriate to use this Private Member's Bill as a Trojan Horse to import that debate.

265
There are other important matters on which the National Parks Review Panel also called for legislation. I refer to issues such as: a duty on Ministers or other government departments to further National Park purposes; a statutory development test for National Parks; rights of way legislation; and of course new National Parks. I am sure that there are many noble Lords who would think that they are equally important to discuss, but now is not the time to do so and they are not affected by my Bill.
What is important and timely, especially in the light of local government review, is the need to establish new National Park authorities to run the National Parks. I trust that my noble friend Lord Peel will agree that it would be wise to wait for government legislation to address his anxieties. I hope therefore that he will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I hear what speakers have said; namely, that now is not the appropriate time to move such an amendment. However, I also noted that I received quite a degree of positive support. But, perhaps more importantly, I think almost every noble Lord who spoke actually sympathised with the point that I am trying to make. We have at least had the opportunity of flagging what is the real problem. It is one which will have to be discussed in great detail if the Bill becomes law and if the recommendations contained in the report of Professor Edwards are to be a second stage to my noble friend's Bill.
I cannot get away from the simple fact that having a policy objective, an enabling system—which, I believe, is basically what was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Barber—by which the parks work with other authorities to look after the interests of those who live and work there, is not the same thing as having a power to look after them; that is, a power to promote their interests. They are two very different concepts.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but I just wanted to make that point. When we discuss the matter again, I hope that that will be very much in the forefront of the thinking of noble Lords. There is a big rift between many—but not all—park authorities and those who live and work therein. I trust that we shall be able to address that very real problem soon so that the National Parks will have the confidence of the people who live and work in them. As I said, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Parish Council Forum
Each National Park Authority shall establish a Parish Council Forum or equivalent body on which shall be represented by one member each parish council whose boundaries fall wholly or partly within the boundaries of the National Park.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above is intended to be primarily a probing amendment. It
266
returns to a point which I —and, indeed, other noble Lords—raised in Committee about the importance of involving local people. I believe that it is common ground that if park authorities are to function properly they need the co-operation of the people who live in the park.
It therefore seems to me essential that the parish councils, which really are the only councils in close touch with grass roots opinion at the village level, be properly consulted and listened to. In the North Yorks Park, at least, that has not always happened in the past. I should point out that involvement of the parishes in some way would be wholly in line with the Government's overall policy on local government which envisages that parish councils be given art enhanced role.
It is difficult for direct representation by parish councils on the park authorities. That is not something which I am seeking. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to give strong guidance to park authorities that they should set up a special mechanism for obtaining the views of parish councils—both individually and collectively via a parish council forum for each park on which all parish councils would be represented; indeed, my noble friend Lord Norrie said in Committee that he had some sympathy with that point. I hope that guidance would also indicate that they should not only consult the parish councils but they should also give weight to parish views.
I should like to commend the wording used by the Local Government Commission for England in its report entitled, Report to Local People on the future of Local Government for the area North of the Humber. I believe that the commission has given similar advice in other parts of the country. Although the commission is concerned only with the relationship between county and district councils on the one hand and parish councils on the other, it seems to me that its suggestions are also apposite to the relations between park authorities—which, after all, are a part of local government—and parish councils. I quote the key sentences from the commission's report:
"Since parish and town councils are an important reflection of people's sense of identity with their community, the Commission recommends that their role be enhanced … The Commission agrees with many of its respondents that a clear consultative framework should be established between local authorities and parish and town councils. This framework, or 'local charter', should ensure that parish and town councils have rights to the following:
1. a clear statement of those matters affecting the local community upon which they will be consulted; the range of matters for consultation should be widely drawn;
2. sufficient information from local authorities about local matters on which their views have been requested;
3. the right to a written explanation from a local authority if it decides, as it legitimately may, not to agree with the views of the parish or town council;
4. regular meetings between representatives of the local authority and the parish and town councils to discuss matters of common interest".
It seems to me that this formula, or something like it, might be included in the guidance by the Secretary of State to a park authority as to the way in which the latter should conduct its relationship both with individual parishes and with its parish council forum. Finally, I would hope that if the Secretary of State is prepared to

267
give such guidance he would do so in rather a formal manner. In this particular case I have been persuaded that it would be wrong for the Bill to provide for the Secretary of State to give legally binding directions to park authorities about parish councils because the whole essence of the Bill is to give power to the park authorities and not to central government. On the other hand I would hope that ministerial guidance, while short of direction, would in this instance take the form of a formal and fairly strongly worded circular.
As I said at the outset, this is intended as a probing amendment in the hope that my noble friend the Minister—who I am sure, from what he has already said, is as anxious to involve local people in the workings of the parks as are all noble Lords—will be able to give the House some fairly firm indications of the nature and form of the guidance he has it in mind to give to the parks about the establishment of a parish council forum for each park and about the involvement of parishes generally. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have no quarrel or particular negative concern with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, but he is of course speaking for England only. He clearly had no idea, in putting down the amendment, that in Wales we do not have parish councils. We do not have an established Church. We have parochial church councils which deal exclusively with matters concerning churches and we have community councils. If one was going to do proper justice to the Principality of Wales, obviously one would have to refer to the community councils which would be our equivalent. I do not wish to pursue the matter further but it is essential to indicate that this Anglicised view of the Bill should not be sustained. Happily, this is only a probing amendment and therefore I shall not continue with the argument but I am certain that everyone in the House will have recognised that we could not possibly let it go through as it stands. On a purely practical line, I would suggest that if one is going to have only one person from a parish council, one must certainly make provision for alternates but that is a matter of detail.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady White in her contention that in Wales we do not understand what parish councils are. We have community councils. The problem with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is not just that, although that is problem enough. It is that a community council in Wales, if I may speak for a moment for Wales, has not got a particular constitution which the parish council in England has, and we have difficulties with community councils which may or may not represent the people they pretend to represent. That may be true of parish councils in England. I have no experience of that.
If I may speak for a moment of the Welsh problem, to have one member of each community council—which I take to be the equivalent body of that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his amendment —whose area is in some way in a national park, represented we know not how and speaking for we
268
know not what interest within some national park authority in some way which we know not, does not seem in the Welsh context to make much sense. Nevertheless, having said all that, I appreciate the thrust of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, which I believe I supported at the Committee stage; that is, that the national park authorities have to be very sensitive to the needs and requirements of the local people in the area. But even as a probing amendment I am bound to say that I consider it rather defective.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I hope I may get away from Wales for a moment because I absolutely accept the objections which have been put forward about that. I, too, am grateful that this is a probing amendment. I am far from sure that it is right to put such a proposal on the face of the Bill. However, I join with the noble Lord who proposed the amendment in saying that we in this party would certainly think it of immense importance that we try to involve people at the very lowest tier of local government, to get their views and consent and to allow their initiatives to be examined, however worthy the objectives of the national parks. I think I have already shown that I fully support that. I also strongly support the need for consultation and carrying along, and listening to, the people who live on the ground in the areas and the bodies to which they elect their representatives. I hope that the Government will take aboard most of what I say.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, from the government viewpoint let me say straightaway that we are very aware of the importance of the role which parish and community councils play in the affairs of the national parks. We are also aware of the need for the new authorities to make sure that proper arrangements are in place to ensure that the parish and community councils have the opportunity to make their input into the affairs of the new authorities. Certainly, I am happy to assure my noble friend Lord Derwent that we intend to issue guidance in due course in the form of a departmental circular to the new authorities to the effect that they should make formal provision to ensure that the parish and community councils are given the fullest opportunity to make their views known. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Welsh Office will issue its own guidance in its own particular form.
There are already examples where effective consultations have been set up by the existing authorities. For example, the formal channels which Dartmoor has set up and the parish council forum in the Peak park offer models on which other parks should be encouraged to build. I can also reassure my noble friend Lord Derwent that parish and community councils will continue to be statutory consultees on development control matters. So dialogue with individual councils will continue to be important.
There is a further means—I would particularly point this out to my noble friend—by which the parish and community councils make a contribution to the affairs of the parks. The Secretary of State, in making his appointments, welcomes nominations from a wide range of interests. At present, however, he receives very

269
few names with a parish and community council background, and parish and community councils will, I am sure, want to consider how best they can ensure that candidates with an interest in those matters are put before the Secretary of State.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Derwent for bringing this important matter of the interests of parish, town and community councils before the House this evening. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for reminding the House that in Wales it will be the community councils within the three parks which will be voicing their opinions.
I stated at Second Reading that I am supportive of such councils having an effective voice to which the national park authorities will be attuned. It will be helpful to establish a parish or community council forum in each national park.
As my noble friend Lord Arran said, the requirement for the establishment of an equivalent body will be set out in the Government guidance. This implements the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel which said that there should be,
"regular forums to explain the implications of policy developments and to hear the aspirations and problems of park communities".
Naturally that challenge will need to be looked at on a park-by-park basis. The same formula will not work across the map of national parks. For instance, the Yorkshire Dales park has 83 parishes within its boundaries; the Peak District has 114; and the Snowdonia National Park has 55 community councils. Noble Lords will appreciate the scale of the task.
I note the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Derwent about local responsiveness under the new national park authorities. As I made clear on Second Reading, this Bill provides benefits for local responsiveness. For instance, every local authority with an area which falls within the boundaries of a park—and that includes district councils where they continue to exist after local government review —will be represented on the new authorities. In the case of most of the proposals for unitary authorities, their area will be smaller than the current counties and their boundaries are more likely to be drawn closely around the national park areas.
The Minister has also made it clear that his guidance will say that local authority members should, where possible, come from wards within the park or live in the park area. I feel that the Bill provides for a greater level of local responsiveness and that forging better links with parish and community councils is all part of the picture.
I hope that those factors will reassure my noble friend Lord Derwent that his anxieties will be met and that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, as I said this is intended as a probing amendment. First, I should like to apologise to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The last thing that I want to do is to start a war between national parks—one in North Yorkshire and some in Wales. I apologise for the oversight.
I am grateful for what I thought were quite categoric assurances by the Minister and by my noble friend Lord
270
Norrie that everyone is conscious of the problem and is sympathetic to what lies behind it. I look forward to seeing the guidance which my noble friend the Minister will issue in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [National Park authorities]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("(3) The number of members appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (a) above shall, as far as is practicable, be twice that appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (b) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name.
This amendment arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee on this Bill when the noble Lord the Minister indicated, in accepting an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who also accepted that amendment, that he might look at the amendment that I had put down, which was not dissimilar but somewhat stronger than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
I have tabled this amendment again. with one slight variation—"as far as is practicable"—simply because it would appear sensible that, if we are to enshrine in this Bill and this Act, if it ever gets that far, the principle of two thirds/one third, there should be some let out if local authority appointed members die and you cannot immediately fill the place, or if Secretary of State appointees die and you cannot immediately fill the place, and at least the words "as far as is practicable" should be inserted into the provision.
I believe that this is in the spirit of Edwards and, indeed, in the present spirit. If it is right at the moment, and if Edwards thought that it was right at the time, I see no reason why it should not be right now. I know that the noble Earl has accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I am not going to press this to a Division. I should just like to know, after the noble Earl's comments in Committee when he said that he would look at this, what the Government's position is. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am a little uneasy with my noble friend's amendment. I feel that it is important to keep the Bill as it is on the subject of membership. The formula, which is now clear, has the majority of members from local authorities and it has found widespread support. I would be very unwilling to change it at this stage.
The process of local government review makes uncertain the circumstances in which national park authorities will exist. It is important not to remove any possibility of discretion, within limits, on the subject of membership.
In England the outcome of local government review is far from clear. We could have a national park covered by one unitary authority. In Wales we know what the Government intend. In Snowdonia the national park authority will be covered by two unitary authorities. In the Brecon Beacons there will be several. But in the case of the Pembrokeshire coast the entire area will be covered by one unitary authority.

271
The situation in which a national park is covered by one authority has not worked well in the past. The concern is that what may happen is that a single local authority may dominate national park business with the dominant political party operating as a single bloc. Up to now, as we discussed at an earlier stage, party politics do not, on the whole, enter into national park arrangements, but this particular arrangement would invite problems.
We can offer an example. From February 1952 to July 1964 the Dartmoor National Park drew its local authority members solely from Devon County Council. The park was not at its most effective during that time. As we heard at Second Reading from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, it was during that period that the county promoted Swincombe reservoir on Dartmoor. The Countryside Commission comparison of actions taken by national park authorities between 1954 and 1970 shows that the county gave a low priority to the national park authority and resisted even the most basic expenditure at that time.
It does not seem in the best interests of national parks to equip them for the future with their administrative framework having an in-built potential problem which already has a historical precedent.
I hope that my noble friend will not feel that he needs to press the amendment. In fact, he has said that he will not do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will not feel disposed to accept it, because I believe that it would be unfortunate to do so at this time. It is possible that by the time the promised legislation comes from the Government we shall know better what the arrangements in the national parks will be and we can discuss the matter at that time.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. If a situation arises such as she described in which discretion is needed there is surely merit in a system which allows the Secretary of State to be able to return to Parliament on a matter of changed circumstances under clear procedures set out in the Bill without having to find time for primary legislation.
If the exact proportions of membership are set out on the face of the Bill I believe that I am right in thinking that primary legislation would be needed to amend it. As we all know, time to amend primary legislation is always in short supply. Therefore I support the Bill as it stands with the proportions of membership set out in the government guidance. That provides the right mechanism to cope with any changing circumstances.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I thought that we had got the matter about right with the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, which we accepted at Committee stage: that there should always be a majority of local authority members.
This amendment goes further. I do not wish to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. She put her finger on the crucial point. I intervene simply because, if I understood him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, thought his amendment was in tune with the Edwards Report. I do not think that it is. Surely
272
the whole thrust of the Edwards Report was the importance of the plurality of voices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, the danger is that we might lose that factor in certain circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will resist the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lord Chorley. I agree with all the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. There is a real danger that if the amendment were to be accepted, some national parks might be dominated by one unitary authority and other interests which ought to be represented would not be represented. It is right that the Secretary of State should retain discretion.
Like my noble friend, Lord Chorley, I, too, think that what was done at Committee stage in accepting the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was right, and as far as we should go. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was quite right. I undertook to consider the amendment which required that two-thirds of the members of the new authorities should be appointed by the constituent local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State.
We have given the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, very careful consideration. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent which was agreed at Committee sets out beyond any possible doubt that there will always be a clear majority of local authority members on each national park authority. In addition, I have made it clear that it is our intention that not only should the local authority members be in the majority, they should make up two-thirds of the total membership of the national park authorities, and the Secretary of State members the remaining one-third.
During Committee, I explained to your Lordships that it is our intention that the current balance of representation between local authorities and Secretary of State members will be maintained so that two-thirds of the total will be appointed by the local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State. That remains our intention. I hope that that will allay the concerns or anxieties that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may have.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given us an important matter to scrutinise. I believe that the Bill as it stands is right. I shall explain why.
I have made clear throughout the debate my preference for using the 1949 formula on the face of the Bill and for setting the exact membership proportions in the circular. Thanks to the most helpful amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, the Bill makes it abundantly clear that there will always be a local authority majority. It also sets an upper limit for the local authority members. Since Committee stage, in my consultations I found widespread satisfaction with the clear signals that that gives. I believe it is right that the Bill itself sets exact parameters but not exact

273
proportions. Those proportions should be established in the circular and in the orders setting up the individual parks.
The Minister has been most clear in his statement: he intends to set the membership at two-thirds of local authority appointed members and one-third Secretary of State appointed members. That I fully support.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that it would not be desirable to take away from the face of the Bill discretion that national parks legislation has always offered. As the Bill stands, it retains the possibility to look again under changed circumstances at the detailed membership numbers. We currently face the prospect of changed circumstances with the review of local government, the outcome of which is still unknown. We face the prospect of single-tier local authorities. Under such a regime it is less obvious how national park authorities will achieve the mix of local strategic and national interests which have always been the hallmark of national park membership. I say that without in any way questioning the importance of getting right and enhancing the local responsiveness to my Bill.
In England the outcome of local government review is far from clear. In Wales it is proposed that Snowdonia National Park will be covered by two unitary authorities; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, the Brecon Beacons by several authorities; and the Pembrokeshire coast by one authority. It is unknown what the effects of the changes will be on the national parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested that a prescriptive formula could deny options in those circumstances.
It would be helpful if I were to remind the House that the Bill is drafted in such a way that national park authorities could never be quangos. The new authorities will rest firmly within the local government sector, will have a local authority majority, and local authority procedures will apply. In addition, I pointed out that the chairman and deputy chairman will be elected from among the authority membership and not appointed by the Secretary of State—a benefit which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, assisted in making clear at Committee stage. All those factors give clear signals about the nature of the new authorities.
It is also important to remember that the Secretary of State has a duty to consult local authorities in drawing up orders for individual parks.
I hope that on reflection the House will join me in supporting the Bill as it stands. The parliamentary draftsman probably has got it right. I should resist deviation from the wording of sub-paragraph (3) of Schedule 1. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, at Second Reading, I said that so far as my Party was concerned from our Front Bench the Bill had support. However, in Committee, I said, as I believe all noble Lords will recognise, that certain of my honourable friends in another place who represented Welsh constituents had strong feelings about the representation of local
274
authority appointees and Secretary of State appointees, given (if I may introduce a slightly controversial note) the nature of the present incumbent at the Welsh Office.
At Second Reading I undertook that my right honourable and honourable friends on the Front Bench in another place would support the Bill. I gave that undertaking on authority. However, I was told by my colleagues in another place that this matter was of considerable interest. I am anxious that the Bill should go forward. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—I do not refer to the Government —has not recognised that, since I do not propose to press the matter, there is now a danger (I put it no higher) that some of my honourable friends in another place will decide that they cannot support this specific measure. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, knows what I am talking about; he raised the matter. If that is what 'your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, wish to see, that is what you wish to see.
If my amendment had been accepted, I think that I could have guaranteed that at least the Front Bench on the Welsh side in another place would support the Bill. As it is, I am afraid that I cannot offer any such guarantee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("(3) It shall be the duty of a National Park authority, in relation to any committee or sub-committee to which this sub-paragraph applies, to secure—

(a) that the membership of the committee or sub-committee consists of or includes both local authority members of the authority and at least one member appointed to the authority by the Secretary of State;

(b) that the division of members of the authority who are members of the committee or sub-committee between—

(i) local authority members, and

(ii) members appointed to the authority by the Secretary of Stale,

is (as nearly as possible using whole numbers) in the same proportions as required by virtue of paragraph 1(2) above in the case of the authority itself; and

(c) that the quorum of the committee or sub-committee includes at least one local authority member of the authority and at least one member appointed to the authority by the Secretary of State.

(3A) Sub-paragraph (3) above applies in the case of any National Park authority to the following committees and sub-committees, except those appointed under section 102(4) or (4A) of the 1972 Act (advisory committees), that is to say—

(a) any committee or sub-committee of the authority;

(b) any joint committee on which the authority is represented; and

(c) any sub-committee of such a joint committee.

(3B) The proceedings of a committee or sub-committee to which sub-paragraph (3) above applies shall not be invalidated by any failure of a National Park authority to perform its duty under that sub-paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should first explain that this amendment is simply a technical expansion of the amendment brought forward by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in Committee. I am advised that his amendment was not as tightly worded as it might have been, in particular the word "balance" was open to interpretation. In other words it was not clear whether the membership of committees and sub-committees of the new authorities should comprise a simple majority of local authority members or whether the membership should reflect a combination of the

275
actual proportion of local authority and Secretary of State members. The amendment gave no indication on the minimum representation of both types of interest —that is to say, local authority and Secretary of State.
In Committee I also said that I was sympathetic to the principle behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which is that all committees and sub-committees of national park authorities should reflect the proportion of the two types of members on the authority. My amendment also makes it clear that there must be, at the minimum, at least one of each type of member for a particular meeting to have a quorum.
At Committee stage I had envisaged that those requirements would be clear, through the Government's guidance. But my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made it clear that he was not content with that reassurance. I have now been advised by the Government that by adopting this wording it is possible that the provision will be made on the face of the Bill, as your Lordships wish. The technical expansion does not affect the intentions of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, but I am advised that it puts them on a much sounder and legal footing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we appreciate the need to reflect both national and local interests in all aspects of the work of the national park authorities. For
276
that reason, I explained to noble Lords during Committee that it is our intention to advise the national park authorities that the composition of their committees and sub-committees should reflect the balance between local authority and Secretary of State members on the authority itself.
During Committee, noble Lords agreed to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which requires the committees and sub-committees of the national park authorities to reflect the two-thirds/ one-third balance of local authority and Secretary of State membership of the authority. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie develops the intention underlying the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell which was agreed to at Committee and provides a more workable alternative because it is drafted in precise terms. On that basis, we support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with an amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty three minutes past eight o'clock.

  TURKEY: WEU AND EU MEMBERSHIP
  TURKEY: WEU AND EU MEMBERSHIP
  STREET CHILDREN
  STREET CHILDREN
  SOUTHERN IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
  SOUTHERN IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
  SUDAN: TALKS
  SUDAN: TALKS
  CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS: HUMAN RIGHTS
  CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS: HUMAN RIGHTS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION REQUEST TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION REQUEST TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
  NATO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND US FORCES
  NATO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND US FORCES
  NATO AIR ACTION, BOSNIA: AUTHORISATION
  NATO AIR ACTION, BOSNIA: AUTHORISATION
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 18th APRIL
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 18th APRIL
  CAA NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES: PRIVATISATION OPTIONS REPORT
  CAA NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES: PRIVATISATION OPTIONS REPORT
  RIVER WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
  RIVER WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
  STATEMENT ON THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES
  STATEMENT ON THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES
  COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS: REMUNERATION
  COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS: REMUNERATION
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL: APPEAL PROCEDURES CORRESPONDENCE
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL: APPEAL PROCEDURES CORRESPONDENCE
  EC FINANCIAL PROJECTS: CURRENCY DENOMINATION
  EC FINANCIAL PROJECTS: CURRENCY DENOMINATION