Sitting of 29 April 1994

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

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
9.34 am
Sir John Hannam: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Ministers should provide sufficient time on the floor of the House before 27th May 1994 to allow all remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to be completed, and that sufficient time be provided before the end of the Session for the consideration of any Amendments to the Bill which may be made by the House of Lords.
The motion asks hon. Members to approve a resolution calling on the Government to provide the necessary parliamentary time for an important private Member's Bill to proceed. There are many hon. Members who support the Bill, but are unable to be here today. There are also many hon. Members who are present and will participate in today's debate.
There is one right hon. and learned Member who I particularly wish was present today—the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who is paying a visit to my constituency today. I was unable to persuade him to give up that trip to come here instead.
Last November, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) came seventh in the ballot. Although that is not a prime position for parliamentary time, it was very much to the delight of the all-party disablement group and all the disability organisations outside that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to introduce a Bill that had previously passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, had been sponsored by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and had come to this House, only narrowly to fail to obtain a Second Reading.
The Bill introduces comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people, and seeks to outlaw discrimination on the ground of disability in every section of life—education, employment, training, banking, insurance, and access to buildings, houses and leisure and transport facilities.
Today's debate is not a debate on the Government's record in the subject. I am proud of the many advances achieved in recent years. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People knows of my admiration for the work he does for disabled people. The Government share our overall objective of removing discrimination, but we differ on the means and the paths of achieving it, which is why the Bill has been introduced.
Once the hon. Member for Kingswood announced his intention to promote the Bill, disabled people across the country began a vigourous and disciplined campaign in support. On 9 March, more than 2,000 disabled people, and their friends and relatives, lobbied the House and Members of Parliament asking them to vote for the Bill's Second Reading. Two days later, 231 hon. Members did just that,
496
and no one voted against. With that unanimous vote the House expressed its opposition to discrimination against disabled people. The vote signalled to employers, service provides and disabled people that Parliament takes the issue seriously. We are determined to legislate to end discrimination.
My motion seeks to renew the commitment made on 11 March, and asks the Government not to let such a serious and well-supported commitment become a hostage to the restrictions of the parliamentary timetable. There is ample historical precedent for the Government allowing a private Member's Bill to progress. Rarely has there been a Bill more worthy of reordering parliamentary business.
I shall outline what happened to the Bill in Committee. Just before Easter, the Committee discussing the Bill sat for the first time and we moved a timetable motion expressing our willingness to sit mornings and evenings, Tuesdays and Wednesdays to give us sufficient time to look at the provisions of the Bill in detail, as the Prime Minister had requested on the Floor of the House.
It was with considerable disappointment therefore that members of the Committee greeted the Government's decision not to table any amendments in Committee, especially as that seemed to be contrary to the wishes that the Prime Minister had expressed in his statement on 8 March. However, sponsors and supporters of the Bill tabled amendments in Committee, listened to the concerns of opponents of the Bill and accepted the principle behind amendments suggested by others.
After three intense sittings of the Committee, we were all agreed that the Bill had been examined in detail and improved, and that it was now ready to return to the Floor of the House for its Report stage.
More than 20 amendments were discussed in Committee. Some extended the provisions of the Bill to telecommunication provision for people with sensory disabilities. The employment provision was extended to employers of fewer than 20 people. As 97 per cent. of the population are employed in small businesses and other such outfits, it was necessary to ensure that people would be covered against onerous responsibilities by the introduction of such phrases as "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship". We amended the Bill to ensure that that was the case.
The Bill was also extended to encompass domestic new buildings. For many years, we have been involved in a campaign for a reasonable standard of accessibility to be incorporated automatically into all new domestic buildings.
Other amendments dealt with the language of disability and the terms used. We changed, for example, the words "people with disabilities" to "disabled people". The disablement commission was changed to the Disability Rights Commission. Some amendments dealt with the workings and responsibilities of the commission. The commission was given duties instead of functions. A detailed procedure was set out in terms of
"consultation with Parliament before the Commission could issue its Codes of Practice."
The principle of consulting employment organisations was accepted, which is an important point.
We all accept that employers are apprehensive about the Bill's cost implications. That is why we had meetings with the Employers Forum on Disability, and why we are setting up meetings with the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry.

497
On 22 April, the CBI wrote to ask for consultation. A letter that I received from Howard Davies, the director-general of the CBI, contained two important passages. He wrote:
"The first concern is that, while there is clearly a need for a new legislative framework"—
a key phrase—
"to protect people with disabilities in employment, and possibly in other areas, to introduce such legislation without consulting employers and other groups that will be instrumental in ensuring that such legislation is effective is unlikely to produce the best solution. There are many factors that need to be taken into consideration, and which could be tackled in a consultation exercise."
He then lists those factors, which we have discussed. He continues:
"I also hope that you will be able to support the proposal that I am making to the Secretaries of State concerned with this area. I am suggesting that Government should acknowledge the need for action in the areas highlighted by the Bill and bring forward its own White Paper on the civil rights of people with disabilities. I hope that my comments also demonstrate that the CBI would want to make a positive and constructive contribution to that process."
That is a significant letter. It suggests a White Paper and it shows that the biggest employer organisation in the country wants action on civil rights for disabled people.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Did the hon. Gentleman gain the impression that the CBI was seeking a White Paper as a substitute for the Bill, or to supplement and complement it?
Sir John Hannam: The CBI recognises that the Government have difficulties in accepting the Bill. That is a realistic appraisal. It wants to have consultations and is setting up meetings, but it is moving from basic stand-off hostility to the concept of legislation.
That letter clearly shows that the CBI recognises that there is a need for action in employment and other sectors. It is saying that the Government cannot just stand back; that they must move forward; and that, if the Bill is not acceptable to them, they must produce a White Paper that will show their intent. The CBI has taken a significant step.
Mr. Tom Cox: Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with the Institute of Directors? Today, I received through the post, as possibly other hon. Members have, the May edition of "Disability Now" in which Lord Young, the president of the Institute of Directors, is highly critical of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry).
Sir John Hannam: We are having a dialogue and setting up a meeting with the Institute of Directors, which has expressed hostility to the Bill. It is probably the one organisation that has expressed the greatest hostility, representing the fears, which I mentioned earlier, of the business sector.
The business sector in the United States also had those fears when it went through the same process. We hope to set up discussions with the CBI and the Institute of Directors to start reassuring them and to explain that not only costs but benefits are involved. One has to be realistic and include costs and benefits in any analysis of the effects of the Bill.
In Committee, we extended the powers of the Secretary of State to exempt certain categories of covered entities.
498
We proposed an amendment to allow for much longer phase-in periods for compliance with the requirements of the Bill. That is an important factor and will be of significant reassurance to the Institute of Directors, the CBI, businesses and the Federation of Small Businesses. That amendment is a reaction to, and should reassure the fears expressed over, the possible costs of immediate implementation of statutory legislation on adaptation to buildings and equipment.
The amendments showed that the promoters and supporters of the Bill had acted, in the absence of any amendments from the Government, as a respectable mouthpiece and channel for the concerns expressed outside.
Members of the all-party disablement group and the disability lobby have approached the Prime Minister, Secretaries of State and the organisations that oppose the Bill. We have offered to meet them and to discuss concerns about the legislation's effects. Meetings are now being arranged. Unlike most private Member's Bills, which emerge from Committee basically unamended, this one was improved in Committee. It is ready for and deserving of a full Report stage.
As I mentioned, the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses have expressed their concerns about the Bill's provisions. The CBI has expressed rational and valid misgivings about its effect on businesses. Those echo the concerns that were expressed in the United States, where people were worried about the effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act on their businesses. Like the American legislation, our Bill safeguards business interests with clauses that include such terms as "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship", which are further backed up by the long phasing-in periods for the most inaccessible and expensive facilities.
This week, I received a letter from America from the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which has a membership of about 263,000 businesses. In that organisation, Jennifer Ley deals specifically with the effects of the American legislation. She writes:
"I must admit some shock at the temerity of your UK colleagues in the business community. As you will find in the US General Accounting Office Report, 'ADA, Initial Accessibility…business response (in America) has been very positive to the ADA. In as much as the BBB bureau system has as its members some 263,000 businesses I can tell that the response that we have received from businesses has been very positive."
She goes on:
"I must also point out that the financial burdens your opponents quote are not quite accurate. In the case of new construction the requirements of"
the legislation in the United States
"only increase the original price by 1 per cent. The buying power of 49 million people and the addition to the workforce are also factors they have neglected to mention."
I must stress that the only people who need be afraid of this legislation are those who have not properly read the Bill, and those who wish to continue unfairly to discriminate against disabled people.
There are, of course, many misconceptions about the Bill, and I shall try to clarify some of them. There is a misconception that the Bill would require an employer to hire a disabled person even if he were not best suited to the job, but that is not true. The Bill is not a positive discrimination Bill, but would give disabled people the right to legal redress if they felt that they had been discriminated against unreasonably.

499
A further misconception is that all buildings would have to be made accessible immediately, whatever the cost involved and whatever the size of the building. Again, that is just not true. As I have already said, that would be prevented by the use of terms such as "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship", and long phase-in periods where appropriate.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend feel that such provisions water down the Bill too much?
Sir John Hannam: No, they follow the pattern of the American experience where, after negotiations with all the representative bodies involved, a solution was reached which allowed a suitable phase-in period. In fact, that period was up to 20 years.
Let us consider transport systems for a moment. It would be ridiculous to expect our underground system to be adapted for disabled people within a week, six months or a year. It will take a very long time and will have to be carefully planned and phased in, all of which, now that the Bill has been amended, would come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.
We have not laid down a fixed period for implementation of the Bill's provisions. In America, a period of 20 years was laid down but, because of the concerns expressed, we have gone further and left it to the Secretary of State to work out the length of time that would be necessary for the changes to be made. I hope that that explains the reassurances given in the Bill. The Bill will not lose its effectiveness, because such legislation can change the climate overnight.
Another fear that has been expressed, and which is connected to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), is that the Bill would bankrupt small businesses and create financial hardship among many commercial interests. Again, that is not true. In addition to the legal reassurances in the Bill, practical reassurance is available from the experience of business in the United States. As I said on Second Reading, there have been no business collapses as a result of the 1990 legislation in America.
The Institute of Directors claimed that it would be cheaper to provide disabled people with separate special facilities instead of improving access in general. I do not believe that the institute understands the basic concept of equality which underlies anti-discrimination legislation. It also severely underestimates the role that disabled people can play in the economy once workplaces become accessible to them.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: One of the complaints made by the Institute of Directors in particular was that there had been no prior consultation with business organisations before the Bill was drafted, and that what was inevitably a difficult matter—the attempt to quantify the cost to business of such legislation—became even more important. What consultation is now taking place with businesses, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses or the Confederation of British Industry?
Sir John Hannam: At the Prime Minister's behest, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People consulted on anti-discrimination legislation. At the same time, meetings were taking place between
500
the all-party disablement group and the Employers Forum on Disability to discuss the implications of the Bill. I should not like to go too far, but I think that we have been able to persuade members of the forum that there was a sound case for the presentation of this legislation. In this connection, I have quoted from a letter written by the director-general of the CBI, and we are now setting up meetings with the other two organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Another misconception that has been peddled is that the Bill would require employers to pay equal wages to less productive employees, but that is not true. The Bill would cover only qualified individuals, by whom I mean disabled people who would otherwise fit the criteria for a vacancy, but who might need some accommodation of their disability in order for them to be able to carry out the essential functions of the job.
That notion is also embodied in the access to work provisions now coming from the Department of Employment. I hope that the provision will clear up any misconception that the Bill would require employers to open up positions of employment for all the wrong reasons.
I believe that I reflect the views of most hon. Members when I say that disabled people want to be able to pay their taxes, to go to work and to live reasonably, just like everyone else. It is as simple as that. I hope that I have cleared up some of the unfounded fears expressed by opponents of the Bill.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Part IV deals with the provision of goods and services, and clause 6 contains a fairly long list of bodies and organisations that must provide facilities for the disabled. It will clearly involve a great deal of money. My hon. Friend mentioned a phase-in period of 20 years in the United States, but I can find no mention of a phase-in period in the Bill. As I understand it, organisations will be required to provide the necessary facilities overnight.
Sir John Hannam: If my hon. Friend reads the amendments that were made in Committee, he will realise that the reverse is the case. It is true that the unamended Bill laid down a five-year period for implementation, but the Committee considered that that was too short. We therefore made the phase-in period open-ended, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. We have allowed a longer period than that in the United States, because we took account of the fears that were being expressed.
However, some things can be done literally overnight, as I shall show later. In the United States, a vast raft of access was provided overnight by many employers who had always been able to do so but had never bothered because there had been no requirement that they should not discriminate against disabled people. The psychological factor can determine a sea change in attitude towards disabled people.
The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading, and was thoroughly examined in detail in Committee. It should now be allowed to pass through the rest of its stages, with both Houses being given the opportunity to express their views on an extremely important subject. We need the Government to show that they are serious, and the best way to do that would be for them to allow Government time for the remaining stages.
Disabled people have waited too long to the Bill for it to be killed by parliamentary procedure. We should not be

501
doing ourselves any favours by hiding our concerns behind excuses of timetables and so on, especially when the Bill's sponsors have shown such willingness to discuss the concerns of others and, where reasonable, to meet them halfway.
I have received many letters from organisations representing disabled people and from disabled people themselves. I shall read from a couple to give some flavour of the feelings of many organisations and people outside. In a letter dated 21 April, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People wrote:
"It would be very sad if Disabled People failed to gain full and equal rights due to parliamentary procedure, particularly when so many of you"—
Members of Parliament—
"clearly support the Bill."
A letter from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People states:
"Much excitement has been generated throughout the deaf and hard of hearing communities at the degree of support the Bill has received from all sides of the House: And I know every one of the 7.5 million people who have some hearing loss throughout the UK would … wish you every success next week."
There are many other letters from which I could quote for half an hour or an hour.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those organisations would be dismayed if sufficient time were not allowed for the Bill, especially in the light of rumours going around the Palace that the House will probably rise for the summer recess earlier than we have done for many years?
Sir John Hannam: I welcome that intervention. If I was making an objective analysis of the parliamentary programme, I would say that there was not a great deal of business to keep us here late into the summer. The Government therefore cannot use the argument that we have such a crowded timetable that time cannot be found.
The Government must consider granting the extra time, for several reasons. First, support for the Bill is overwhelming. All the national disability organisations—I have mentioned one or two—the House of Lords, the all-party disablement group and the majority of hon. Members, including a growing number of Conservative Back-Bench Members, have expressed their support for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.
Secondly, the Prime Minister expressed a desire for the Bill to be examined in detail, and individual Secretaries of State have said that they are looking with interest at the Committee record; they have stated that in answers to parliamentary questions and in letters. The Prime Minister and Secretaries of State should be given the opportunity to discuss their position on the Bill on the Floor of the House during later stages.
Thirdly, when a Bill has such support and is the subject of such attention from the general public and from 6.5 million disabled people, it should be allowed to be voted on, and not left to fall foul of the parliamentary timetable.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I fully agree with the argument that there is plenty of time in this parliamentary Session to get the Bill through. Last year, Parliament sat for only seven months out of 12, so there would have been time then. The chances are that we shall not sit much longer this year.
502
There is another way in which the Bill can complete its parliamentary progress. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). We use this debate as an opportunity for the Government to respond. Opposition Front-Bench Members would seriously consider granting half an Opposition day—our parliamentary time—if the Government would guarantee to give the other half and would give a guarantee to get the Bill through, as has been the case for many private Members' Bills in the past. If the Government responded to that, the Bill would get on the statute book.
Sir John Hannam: I am sure that ways have been found in the past, as the hon. Member says, in which to provide the time. There are all sorts of different ways, and I hope that we shall get some positive proposals from the Government once the House has passed the motion overwhelmingly today. That is the key first step.
We know that some hon. Members may have serious concerns about the drafting of the legislation. The sponsors and supporters of the Bill have expressed—indeed, we have acted on—a willingness to listen and to take on board those concerns whenever they complement the overall aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people.
The current situation has been going on for too long. The Bill is the 13th attempt to introduce such legislation. Over past years, the subject has been taken up by individual Members who have received through their post bags and through surgery doors many examples of discrimination.
At the Prime Minister's behest, the all-party disablement group was involved with discussions with the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. After several months of discussions, the officers of the group decided that the Government's approach, which had the same objective of removing discrimination, but by means of education and persuasion alone, Department by Department, was insufficient as a strategy for ending discrimination against disabled people.
I now turn to the procedural aspects of the motion. I know that I am not exactly the flavour of the month with my Whips Office for choosing this opportunity to table a motion calling on them to find extra time for a private Member's Bill. I also know that they understand my motives for doing so, and my deep conviction that I must do everything possible to assist the cause of removing unfair discrimination.
Private Members' Bills and their procedure would confuse and intimidate anyone. It is to the credit of the hon. Member for Kingswood that he has been able to pilot the Bill so smoothly so far in its proceedings. It would baffle and anger even our greatest cynics if the Bill were to be left hanging in mid-air when so much work has been undertaken by so many people, inside and outside Parliament, to see it through its previous stages.
We all know that procedure can be used to stop unpopular or contentious Bills progressing through the private Member's Bill channels, yet this Bill is neither contentious nor unpopular. Even those with concerns about the details of the Bill support its underlying aim of ridding society of unfair discrimination against disabled people. As we have already seen, the Bill has the support not only of the majority of the House of Commons, but of the majority of the House of Lords.
The history of private Members' Bills suggests that Bills that receive an uncontested Second Reading progress

503
through the remaining stages even if the Government have to give extra time for them to do so. In the 1979–80 Session, the Representation of the People Bill achieved an unopposed Second Reading with 42 minutes of debate. It passed through its Committee stage when it was approved with no discussion by a Committee of the whole House. The Bill's Report and Third Reading stages were taken on the nod on the fifth day.
Two of the most contentious post-war private Members' Bills, the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill and the Abortion Bill of 1967, provide ample evidence of Bills that could not have been enacted within the time allotted to private Members' Bills. Indeed, the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill had an extra day provided by the Government to allow it to complete its Report stage.
As one political commentator writes:
"All the classic private Members' legislation of the 1960s obtained Government time, and none of the Bills involved would have received Royal Assent without the additional time."
Leo Abse's Sexual Offences Bill was introduced as a ten-minute Bill in the 1966–67 Session. It had an unopposed Second Reading, and he persuaded the Government to give the Bill Government time in Committee. On Report, the Bill again ran out of time, so the Government agreed to provide an extra Friday. After that extra day, the Bill still had not finished its Report stage, so the Government offered more time on a Monday. The House sat from 10 pm until 5.50 am the following morning. Hon. Members would be willing to do the same to get this legislation through.
The very important Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—the "Alf Morris Act" promoted by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe—was given extra time by the Government so that it could complete its parliamentary progress.
We are not asking for the impossible or even for the original. Between 1951 and 1985, 64 private Members' Bills were given Government time, of which 33 were granted extra time by Conservative Governments. Library records show that, between 1979 and 1986, four private Members' balloted Bills were given Government time. All those Bills show that, where there is a parliamentary will, there is a parliamentary way.
I am not asking the Government to create a precedent. I have looked at the Library's books and records on the matter. The final paragraph of the Library's book on Government and private Members' Bills makes interesting reading. It says:
"In conclusion. The pattern which emerges is clear. The Government is crucially involved in the private members' bills legislative process. In fact, it is the key actor. Most importantly, it is evident that most successful back-bench Bills are now Government Bills in all but name. None of this means that the Government is totally omnipotent. As we shall see later, the MPs and interest groups involved with promoting private members' business have some ways of fighting back—but they are very limited."
That is a good analysis of the situation that we face.
There is no reason why private Members' Bills should not occupy Government time if the Government are willing, or parliamentary time if Parliament approves. If the Government do not give the Bill adequate time, disabled people and the general public will know that the Bill did not succeed because the Government opposed it.
What is worse is that they will know that the Government did not openly oppose it. They will know that the Government would not give each Member of Parliament the opportunity to vote on an issue that affects,
504
on average, 10,000 of his or her constituents. They would know that, instead, the Government used parliamentary procedures to block the Bill, when they could just as easily have used parliamentary procedures to help it through.
As joint chairman of the all-party disablement group and one of the sponsors of the Bill, I urge all hon. Members to support the motion which calls for adequate time to be given to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill so that it can complete its remaining stages. Let us take this opportunity to put paid, once and for all, to the shameful exclusion of disabled people from our society.
10.9 am
Mr. Roger Berry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his good luck in the ballot and, of course, on his excellent choice of motion.
I was serving with other members of the Standing Committee who were considering the Bill at its last sitting when it was announced that the hon. Member had come top in the ballot for private Member's motions. I can assure the House that the enthusiasm and the excitement of hon. Members in that Committee was probably rivalled only by the enthusiasm and excitement for that result in the Government Whips Office. It was cheered warmly by all members of the Committee, who saw it as an opportunity, as the hon. Member for Exeter has said, of furthering a laudable Bill.
Why is the motion necessary? The history of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill clearly shows why we need to ask the Government for sufficient time to complete its remaining stages. It is extremely important to say that, when I was lucky in the ballot for private Members' Bills early in this Session and I chose to pick up the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, it was not a new idea. It was not a new Bill. The case for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation to protect disabled people had been around for a very long time, and the details of the Bill proposed at Second Reading had been available for all interested parties for well over two years.
In addition to paying tribute to the hon. Member for Exeter and all right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, for whom the House ought to express its gratitude, I especially pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It would be extraordinary if I did not do so, because, as the first Minister for Disabled People, he commissioned a committee of inquiry early in 1979 to examine the issue.
However, consideration of the matter goes back further than 1979, because disabled people and their organisations were campaigning for the precise provisions in the Bill in the early 1970s. But, in early 1979, my right hon. Friend set up a committee on restrictions against disabled people and, as we all know, that committee reported to the Government in 1982. Its report was available 12 years ago for all who wished to consult it.
Three of the recommendations in that report are three of the essential pillars in the Bill before the House: first, there should be legislation to make discrimination on the ground of disability illegal: secondly, the law should cover all areas where discrimination occurs: thirdly, there should be a regulatory body or a commission with powers to investigate, conciliate and, if necessary, take legal action on individual complaints of discrimination.

505
The basic principles of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have been a matter for public debate for at least 12 years. Consultation on the present form of the Bill, as I shall say again in a moment, is welcome, and along with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—sorry. I am sorry if I have got the hon. Member for Exeter into even more trouble with his Whips by referring to him as an hon. Friend. However, I must say that I regard him as both a friend and as honourable.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Exeter said, we have met various organisations, and we have given an unqualified commitment to meet any organisations which have a legitimate interest in the Bill, but the proposals have been on the table for 12 years. Over that time, any organisation could have asked to see the Minister, the Secretary of State, the all-party disablement group, or anybody concerned with the Bill. Indeed, many of those organisations have done that.
So let us be clear about consultation. It is right and proper that we should consult as much as we can before Report, and that is happening, but there have also been many years during which that consultation could and did take place. The Bill is not new, and the provisions are not new.
Mr. Rowlands: In the light of what my hon. Friend and others have said, does that not mean that the argument of lack of consultation cannot possibly be used as an alibi to impede the progress of the Bill? Surely the Bill is absolutely justifiable. It has had a great deal of consultation, it has had 10 years of thorough preparation and therefore should be carried forward.
Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have tried to consult. For goodness' sake, a private Member's Bill which concerns a matter that has been in the public domain for 12 years is before the House. There have been extensive debates and discussions—between the all-party disablement group and the Minister, between the all-party disablement group and the Prime Minister, and between the all-party disablement group and anybody who wanted to talk about such issues. I have attended meeting after meeting where the matters have been discussed.
It is absurd to say to a humble Member who happens to have been lucky in the ballot that he should have consulted even more. Those who support the Bill are doing as much as they can. If there has not been adequate consultation over the years, I do not feel that I must accept all the responsibility for that.
Given that history, and the fact that, three days before the Second Reading on 8 March, the Prime Minister said:
"I hope that the Bill will go into Committee for detailed examination of its provisions".—[Official Report, 8 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 147.],
many assumed—I think that it was reasonable to assume —that objections to the principles of the Bill had been withdrawn. After all, on each and every previous occasion, the Government had blocked the Bill at that stage, so it was reasonable to assume, as many hon. Members did, that the Government no longer objected to the principles of Bill, but wanted to examine the details. Whether that was as a result of a genuine conversion, as I hope, or whether it was the result of the superb lobbying by disabled people and
506
their organisations, which I am sure contributed to our awareness of the issues, or whether it was a bit of both, I do not really mind.
For the first time ever, there was not a single objection to the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Strictly, it was carried by 231 votes to nil, but I must acknowledge the four Tellers, who were doing their job. If they had not been doing that job, I know that they would have voted in favour of the Bill as well, so 235 Members supported the Bill on 11 March and not a single Member was opposed to the basic idea and the well-known principles of the Bill, or went through the Lobby to vote no. Not one hon. Member said no.
As the Bill went into Committee, in response to another parliamentary question on 12 April, the Prime Minister said:
"What we need to do in Committee and thereafter is to look at the practical implications of the Bill and that will be done."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 15.]
In Committee, what did we do? As the hon. Member for Exeter said, first, I moved a sittings motion to indicate that we ought to be prepared to meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, mornings and afternoons, for however long it took for the detailed examination, as requested and promised by the Prime Minister, to take place. We even decided not to sit one morning because the Minister was unable to attend, and we felt that it was right that our deliberations did not continue without the benefit of his contribution.
In Committee on 12 April the Minister said:
"I am not arguing that the Bill is not necessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 12 April 1994; c. 60.]
I know that that is a double negative, but many of us read Private Eye and we know that, when one says that one is not arguing that the Bill is not necessary, in Private Eye-speak that means that one probably thinks that it is a really good idea.
We were encouraged by that and, as the hon. Member for Exeter also said, no Government amendments were tabled. Given the Prime Minister's desire for the "detailed examination", that seemed a little strange, but supporters of the Bill indicated that the door was always open for Government amendments. I even borrowed a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and said that the door was just about falling off its hinges. We were begging for Government amendments to deal with any concerns that the Government might have, but none was forthcoming.
We were not discouraged. The supporters of the Bill tabled between 20 and 30 amendments that were designed specifically to address the concerns raised by the Government and by representatives of several organisations. I repeat the point made by the hon. Member for Exeter: that organisations have requested meetings with us, and that some meetings have been arranged. Other organisations have requested meetings and, again, meetings will be arranged.
The argument has moved considerably. No one argues now that education and persuasion are sufficient. That argument was not advanced on Second Reading and it did not crop up in Committee. It is no longer argued that legislation cannot work. Again, that argument was not advanced on Second Reading or in Committee. After all, if anyone believed that, what would be the future of sex discrimination and race relations legislation?

507
Before we examined the Bill in Committee, the Government had two genuine concerns about the Bill. First, there was the possibility that the Disability Rights Commission might have a policy-making function. The Government, quite legitimately, would not wish that function to be delegated. Secondly, they were concerned about costs. I believe that those were the only two remaining obstacles to the Bill.
So what did we do? We moved an amendment to ensure that codes of practice recommended by the Disability Rights Commission should be introduced through the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval. As a democrat, I believe that to be the right approach. I also believe that the amendment undermined an objection that the Government had to the original Bill. We have made it clear that codes of practice will be a matter for the House to approve or not.
As the hon. Member for Exeter said, we moved an amendment that had the effect of phasing in the Bill's provisions. Again, that will ultimately be subject to parliamentary approval. Costs will be incurred by the Treasury when hon. Members decide that that is right. No one else will make that decision. As a democrat, I think that that is right. I hope, however, as I know most people do, that the Bill's provisions will be implemented quickly. There is no reason for delay.
We have taken head on the Government's objection about costs. As I have said, costs will be incurred when Parliament decides that that is appropriate. I do not know what else we could have done in Committee to take on board the two remaining objections that the Government had to the Bill. Of the 20 or 30 amendments tabled, the Minister voted against only one. That amendment happened to relate to codes of practice being subject to parliamentary approval. I remain mystified that that was the one amendment he voted against, but in the spirit of good will I shall not press that further.
The key point is that the Minister did not oppose any of the clauses. As I have said, he opposed only one amendment. To borrow a phrase that he used in Committee extensively, I do not want to quibble about that. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was generally extremely helpful. When responding to an amendment to clause 1, he used the words:
"Although I would not advise anyone to vote against the amendment".
Later, he said:
"My doubts about the amendment are not acute."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 12 April 1994, c. 46–50.]
During the debate on clause 3, he said:
"I have no objection whatsoever to the amendments".
At a later stage, he said:
"That discussion has served us well."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 March 1994, c.10–20.]
On clause 4, when we discussed discrimination in employment—a crucial part of the Bill—the Minister said that he had "tremendous sympathy" with what the sponsors were trying to achieve, and that he did not want their hopes to be destroyed because of reservations that he had expressed. At an earlier stage, he said:
"I do not want to delay the passing of clause 4."—
That obviously warmed the hearts of all Labour Members in Committee. Now I am in trouble with my Whips.
Another important part of the Bill related to the provision of good services and facilities. Clause 6 was the key remaining provision. When discussing the clause, the Minister said:
508
"I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 12 April 1994, c. 70–90.]
When we moved on to clause 9 on enforcement, he said:
"I do not want to delay the Committee in dealing with the clause … I do not oppose it."
When it came to new clause 3 and the definition of disability—I know that definitions have occupied some hon. Members' minds for a long time—the Minister said:
"I compliment the authors of the new clause".
The prinicipal author sits on my right, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. He continued:
"I praise them for having produced it at such short notice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 13 April 1994, c, 110–112.]
The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that members of the Committee were busy producing amendments, even at short notice, and even ones that were praiseworthy.
In summary, on Second Reading there was an overwhelming vote in favour of the principles set out in the Bill. No one voted against it.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman reconfirm for the benefit of the House and for the record that the Bill is not a positive discriminatory measure? The effect of the Bill is simply to ask for equal rights. I wish to declare a personal interest. I have a researcher—I have already discussed this matter with him—who is severely disabled. The greatest insult would have been to employ him because he was disabled. I employed him because he was bloody good at his job, if I may say so. I should like the hon. Gentleman to confirm what I have put to him.
Mr. Berry: The answer is that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Bill is all about securing for disabled people a statutory right against unfair discrimination. It is about rights. It is about ensuring that disabled people have the same rights as everybody else—no more but no less. The hon. Gentleman is therefore correct. No doubt that is why on Second Reading there was an overwhelming vote in support of the Bill.
The Prime Minister, rightly in my view, felt it necessary to promise detailed examination in Committee. I believe that that examination took place. I hope very much, notwithstanding my comments a few moments ago, or perhaps because of them, that the Minister will confirm that we discussed every clause and amendments to them. As supporters of the Bill, we went out of our way to table amendments to address the concerns that the Government had raised. Surely all must be well for Report. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Exeter has implied, all is not necessarily well for Report, and that is why we need the motion.
I have already referred to the Government Whips Office. The hon. Member for Exeter has said that he is not exactly flavour of the month with the Government Whips Office. What is going on? Could it be that public statements to the effect, "We look forward to the Bill going into Committee and being subjected to detailed examination," run slightly counter to what is being said in private? There is no doubt that that is the position.
I was engaged in a debate on the radio last Friday. Another hon. Member was involved who is not in his place, so I cannot name him. He asserted what many hon. Members have said to me: "Of course, the Bill will be talked out on Report." We all know that there is some deviousness about. In public, opposition to the Bill in

509
terms of votes or hostile amendments in Committee is frankly difficult to find. However, we are told in private that the Bill will be talked out.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: As the hon. Gentleman has devoted such a great deal of his time to this subject, in order to allay one of the principal possible objections to the Bill from employers' organisations, can he tell us what the likely cost on employers, and on the country as a whole, is likely to be? If we are to consider the Bill genuinely in the House, we must have some idea of those costs.
Mr. Berry: I cannot give an estimate of the costs. The Government have been seeking information from various companies and I had hoped that, before this stage, they would have published the results of their rather extensive research.
However, the key point about costs is that the Bill specifically ensures that, if any provision would cause undue hardship to an enterprise, firm or business, that provision would effectively be waived. Undue hardship specifically relates to the cost of adaptations that might be necessary. A whole clause is devoted to the definition of reasonableness in that context. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that that is the best that can be done, and that it is perfectly adequate.
I have suggested that what is being said publicly about the Government's position on the Bill is somewhat different from what is being said privately. I have two comments about that. First, I believe that the Bill is far too important to be treated in that way. This is not a game. Politics is not a game: it is a serious business. It is right and proper that disabled people and their organisations should know exactly where people stand on the issue. This is not an issue in respect of which politicians of any party should be playing games.
Secondly, I believe that the tactics which some fear the Government might use to talk out the Bill on Report will further bring Parliament into disrepute. At a time when public opinion of politicians in this country is, if not at an all-time low, at a pretty low level, such behaviour would only confirm the view that some politicians simply cannot be trusted.
In South Africa this week, discrimination on the grounds of race is beginning to come to an end. I am sure that many decent people have had tears of joy in their eyes and have felt admiration for the political activists who have brought that about. Why is it that this week, in this country, we cannot start to remove discrimination against disabled people at least to ensure that their case will be properly considered? Why cannot we shed a few tears of joy at the ending of discrimination against disabled people in this country? When will we be able to stop feeling anger towards those who still try to block this Bill?
The Bill, or something very like it, will of course eventually reach the statute book. No member of the Committee has any doubt about that. As I have said before, in years to come we will look back and wonder how on earth it could have taken so long for this measure to come about.
Why should disabled people accept any further delay? I do not believe that they should. I therefore support the motion and enthusiastically urge all hon. Members to do the same.
10.34 am
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It may be convenient if I intervene at an early stage in the debate, although I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to it in due course.
I have every sympathy with the concluding remarks, in particular, of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who was the main sponsor of the Bill. I acknowledge that we are addressing a deeply serious issue today and that we will be addressing it again next Friday. We discussed it on Second Reading and in Committee with considerable seriousness. The issue affects the lives of millions of our fellow citizens and it affects society as a whole because of its potential impact on the quality of life of many disabled people and the way in which society addresses their needs and abilities.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his exceedingly good fortune in drawing first place in the ballot for private Members' motions. He has provided us with another opportunity to discuss this very important issue which, it would be fair to acknowledge, has increasingly commanded the attention and concern of hon. Members and of the public at large as the years have passed since a Bill of this type was first introduced.
In practice, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has tabled a motion which is a plea for extra time for the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood. My hon. Friend outlined the Bill's aims and the support that has been expressed by organisations of and for disabled people and the public at large for the passage of the Bill. He also drew attention to the increase in consultation with employers and other providers upon whom, inevitably, some costs would be bound to fall were any legislation of this type to be implemented.
Through his motion and by using a very proper procedural device, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter is seeking to provide more time for a private Member's Bill. In essence, he wants the normal business of the House to be changed to allow extra time for a private Member's Bill. Despite the fact that I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to a former Leader of the House, Standing Orders of the House are not my main homework and I would not claim to be a master of every technicality and procedure of the House. However, it is my understanding that the Standing Orders, which were amended in February 1990, specifically preclude in Standing Order 13A the use of a private Member's motion to determine the "precedence, arrangement or timing" of business or
"allocating time to any proceedings"
or
"amending or varying any Standing Order".
My interpretation of that is that, whatever the outcome of our debate today, it cannot technically affect the progress or otherwise of the next stage of the Bill. It cannot affect the time that may be required for the Bill.
Mr. Skinner: We should place on the record the reason for that change in the Standing Orders. That change was made because, on at least two occasions, a Member came first in the ballot and decided to turn his day for a motion into a day for a Bill. While I have been a Member of this place, that practice started when the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) allowed Enoch Powell to take over his private Member's motion day to

511
pursue his Bill to prevent embryo research. I took part in that debate and used a parliamentary device to stop it. The practice was next used in relation to abortion.
The Standing Orders were changed only to prevent someone who had a victory in the ballot on private Members' motions from turning that Friday or Monday into a day to pursue a Bill. The hon. Member for Exeter has used only a motion; he has not used a Bill. That is the distinction. He is not attempting to do what was done on the two previous occasions. He is calling on the House to give a general voice, acclamation and support for the continuance of the Bill. He is also calling on his Government to repeat what has happened on other occasions—as he said, 64 occasions in all, including 33 times by a Tory Government—when Governments have allowed time for parliamentary Bills to proceed. Clearly, the two things are not the same and I hope that the Minister understands that.
Mr. Scott: I do not wish to clash with the hon. Gentleman on this issue. There are many other issues where I would relish a clash with him, but I think I shall duck a clash on procedure. The advice that I received was that, technically, whatever the genesis was for the change to our procedures and Standing Orders, the Standing Orders as they presently exist preclude the use of the motion in such a way. We should recognise that that is the reality of it, whatever precedents may have occurred before that specific change in our procedures took place. Governments of either persuasion may have also used other ways to meet the demands of the House.
The advice on procedure that I have been given, about which I am confident, is that it would not be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—I think that he acknowledges this point—to use the motion to provide automatically for extra time and that the passage of the motion today would not automatically provide for that.
Mr. Berry: Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, can he confirm that there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent the Government from accepting the spirit of the motion and providing the time that it calls for? Can he confirm that there is nothing whatever to prevent the Government from doing that?
Mr. Scott: Indeed, I understand that the matter was raised yesterday in a question to my right hon. Friend the Lord President by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) as reported at column 386 of the Official Report. Obviously, I can go no further than my right hon. Friend went on that occasion. However, I certainly can confirm that it would be within the Government's powers to do that, although the Standing Orders certainly preclude the passage of the motion today—that is the point that I am making—from automatically providing time or extra time for the Bill.
I shall turn to the issues. Effectively, this is a procedural motion. However, in my brief remarks, I shall touch on some aspects of the Bill and our approach to the general issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for Kingswood did. I hope that our discussion today will not trespass on the time that we shall spend on Report next Friday, because that stage in itself is an important step in our parliamentary procedure.
When I heard that my hon. Friend had come first in the ballot, it came as no surprise when I found out the subject that he had chosen for our discussions today. It is yet
512
another example of his deep commitment to improving the lives of disabled people, which he has demonstrated on many occasions. I acknowledge the reasons and the thinking behind his choice of motion.
As I said, there is an established handling procedure and, however strongly any of us may feel about the issue, we cannot deviate from it. That is not to say that the Government are not listening with care and sympathy to those who are actively campaigning for the Bill and properly using every opportunity to ensure that it reaches the statute book and that the thinking behind it is widely understood in the country outside.
It has already been said that on Second Reading, on 11 March, I reaffirmed the undertaking given earlier by the Prime Minister that the Bill would be examined and discussed thoroughly in Committee. It has been acknowledged by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Kingswood that we fulfilled that commitment in Committee. We thorougly examined and discussed the issues involved in eliminating discrimination against disabled people against a range of amendments and discussions of the clauses in the Bill.
It is fair to say that, whatever our specific interests, as members of the Committee we entered into the work with a shared recognition that discrimination exists, that it is wrong and that more steps need to be taken to tackle it. The differences that cropped up in Committee, as they have cropped up in other discussions on the matter, were about the steps that need to be taken to tackle that discrimination.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends and, indeed, to Labour Members for the consideration and objectivity that they brought to our discussions in Committee. The discussion was conducted in a calm and constructive way. That enabled us to identify a degree of common ground between the sponsors of the Bill and the Government. Although the good-natured atmosphere in Committee did not prevent us from touching on some sensitive areas of difference, there was considerable common ground. Some other complex issues that had been discussed earlier were touched on again in Committee. Once again, that was a healthy part of our procedure in Committee.
It is fair to say that concerns are still being expressed by employers in industry and elsewhere, and by providers of goods, services and facilities, about the potential costs of the Bill. We must recognise the consultation that is now taking place. I wish that that consultation had taken place earlier, but I am certainly pleased to see that the all-party group and the sponsors of the Bill are now discussing with employers and other providers the question of costs. I recognise the amendment that we made in Committee to ensure that the impact of costs will come into the hands of the Secretaries of State who are concerned with the specific issues in the elimination of discrimination.
There were some reservations about the technicalities of drafting, but I do not want to go into them now. However, I see some positive ground and acknowledgement that parts of the Bill may act as indicators for possible solutions to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. I reiterate my strong commitment and that of the Government to the shared aims of the sponsors of the Bill. We recognise the weight of support that the Bill has attracted. We are responding in our thinking to those pressures and we will continue to do so.

513
I certainly reiterate what the Prime Minister said—the quote has been used frequently in our discussions. He said that we are seeking to see what common ground exists and what ways there are forward.
As I said, I am not here today to discuss in depth what happened in Committee, because that is properly the function of the debate on Report which will take place next Friday. Proper debate will take place then, but I reiterate that the Government remain committed to the elimination of discrimination. We have already made further progress since the end of the debate in Committee.
Only last week, the mobility unit of the Department of Transport and the passenger transport executive group published a new set of guidelines aimed at architects, transport operators and planners involved in the design of public transport terminals and interchanges. That means that areas such as bus and railway stations, including items such as accommodation and furniture, will be covered, whether we are creating new facilities or adapting old buildings and shops.
Those good practices are important if designers are to meet the needs of all passengers, including those with disability and particularly those with mobility needs. That is one small illustration of the progress that the Government are determined to continue to make in that important area. In housing, transport and services facilities, we will continue to press forward with that work.
In education, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education recently laid before Parliament a draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Some 30,000 copies of that code were sent out and more than 1,000 written responses were received, the vast majority of which welcomed the new initiative. The code is being redrafted, it has been welcomed by the all-party children and disablement groups, and it will be considered by the House shortly.
The House will have welcomed the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the access to work scheme. We know the scope of that scheme and we know that widespread concerns were expressed about the need for employers to make contributions towards the cost of the implementation of that scheme.
My right hon. Friend, in taking account of the suggestion made by the all-party disablement group, has decided to introduce the scheme without seeking an employer contribution for a year, and then to review the position. I believe and hope that the House will agree that that is a positive response from the Government to representations which they have received.
Much better progress than was expected has been made in placing disabled people into jobs. The Employment Service had a target last year that 3 per cent. of all its placings of unemployed people should be disabled people, which would have led to 44,000 disabled people being placed in work by the specialist staff of the Department and through job clubs. I am pleased to say that it looks as though more than 50,000 people will be placed in such jobs, apart from the large number of disabled people who find jobs through the Employment Service's self-service system.
Changes have also been announced to the funding arrangements for the supported employment programme
514
—what we used to call sheltered placements. Again, we must recognise that that is important progress. The Government are determined to continue with that progress, and we are determined also to look at the provisions of the Bill and to see what common ground can be established between the Government and the Bill's sponsors.
Today, we are dealing with a procedural motion, the implications of which I outlined at the beginning of my remarks. We will come to Report next week with an attitude which firmly reflects and reinforces the commitments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and we will pursue the remaining stages of the Bill in that spirit. We will return to the issue next Friday, and the Government will continue to study and reflect on the comments which undoubtedly will be made in those discussions and, in due course, we will make clear to the House our conclusions about the further consideration of the matters.
10.52 am
Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I first apologise to the Minister and to the House for briefly being absent at the beginning of his speech? Unlike the Committee stage, when we had excellent cross-party co-operation, there seems to have been a small hitch about when the Minister was to speak this morning.
The Bill has been endlessly debated and has been amended and perfected in a process of scrutiny which few measures in the history of Parliament have undergone. It has been repeatedly introduced by an indefatigable band of warriors, and supported by all-party groups. It passed all its stages in the other place in a previous incarnation, and it has now completed its passage through Committee in the House.
It is a tribute to the way in which a piece of legislation can be supported across party lines, and can be burnished, honed and improved. Having a fair amount of experience of the legislative process in the House, and particularly in Committee, I am sure that I speak for many other hon. Members on both sides when I say, would that all pieces of legislation could have such scrutiny and such a quality of detailed investigation.
We are talking about a finely honed piece of legislation. I have been involved in discussions on Bills where the Government have totally changed their mind about the Bill halfway through the Committee.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Not often enough.
Mr. Sheerman: As my hon. Friend says, perhaps not often enough.
We all know the problems of legislation that has been hurriedly introduced. Minds must be changed halfway through, and massive numbers of Government amendments must be introduced. There have been criticisms this week about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which have related to hasty legislation which has been implemented too quickly with insufficient thought.
One cannot say that about this Bill, which has been given more attention than any other Bill. So exhaustively has the Bill been debated and its virtues extolled and listed by those giving wide-ranging support from all parts of the House, it becomes—even for a politician—quite difficult to say something new about it; the arguments have been made so well.

515
On Second Reading, I drew the attention of the House to the remarks of Ernest Bevin on the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill in 1943 and on the 1944 Act. I thought that the level of debate and the vision that he showed in the House at that time was an inspiration to us, 50 years later.
I do not intend to waste the time of the House by repeating what others have said most ably. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on providing the House with this opportunity. It is pushing on very nicely the progress of the Bill. With regard to what the Minister said about the debate in a week's time, and given that there are no deviations from the norm and we get a proper amount of time for Report, this will be seen as an important milestone in the progress of the Bill.
I want to do something unusual, and confront the reality of the situation of the Bill. I want to put the mind of the Government at rest on the problems that they seem to think surround the Bill. I hope that the House will bear with me while I look at some of the ideas of the Government and of the Conservative party. I will try to show to the House, and particularly to the Government and their supporters on the Back Benches who have not yet signed the early-day motion or publicly come out in support of the Bill, that there is nothing to be afraid of.
I want to confront the reality of the Bill. Whatever else is said today, a private Member's Bill—even one of the quality of that introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)—must depend, as all hon. Members are aware, on a fair wind from the Government. It is a comment on the House that all of us are aware that a private Member's role, and his independence and ability to introduce legislation, has been seriously reduced over a long period by Governments of all political parties.
If we want to look for a villain in the piece, we should look to Asquith during the first world war. He chopped the amount of private Members' time in the House, and it has never been retrieved. During the second world war, all private Members' legislation was suspended and it was not until 1947–48 that 10 motions and 10 private Members' Fridays were reintroduced.
That is a poor contribution to a modern democracy from Back-Bench Members of Parliament. Wearing my Back-Bench hat, I say that we have put up with it for too long. A private Member has a scant chance of introducing legislation and of its succeeding. We are, as ever in the House, far too dependent on the Whips and on the normal channels for deciding what is to be debated in the House and what makes progress.
I say that in a parliamentary sense. For far too long, the country has been democratically short-changed by the amount of time and opportunity for the private Member to get his legislation and ideas pushed through the House and given a fair amount of time. I do not entirely blame this Government or previous Governments. If responsibility lies anywhere, it lies with private Members. We have been careless in the custody of our responsibilities. At some stage, private Members—Conservative Members and my hon. Friends—will have to get together and put that right. We shall have to bring pressure to improve the situation.
Mr. Fabricant: I have a hypothetical question for the hon. Gentleman. If there were ever a Labour Government in the future, would it change the position? Would the hon. Gentleman like to commit that possible future Labour
516
Government to amending the practices of the House to allow extra time for private Members' motions and business?
Mr. Sheerman: I welcome that intervention from the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). He will know that the Labour party does not have a bad record in government. I mentioned 1947 and 1948, when we reintroduced private Members' time. We have quite a record in terms of introducing Select Committees, and so on. The hon. Gentleman probably joins me in making the point that there has to be greater emphasis on the independent role of Members of Parliament. The stark situation today in the real world is that private Members' Bills do not normally succeed unless they are entirely non-controversial or they have a fair wind from the Government. That is the truth. Everyone in the House will recognise that. If the Bill does not get a fair wind from the Government, it will fail. There is no doubt about that.
I want briefly to examine why the Government should change their mind and support the Bill. In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Exeter, I suggested that there were rumours that the House would rise early for the summer recess. So there is no excuse for not allowing time for the Bill to complete its passage.
People will be frustrated if the Bill is not given a fair wind. When our electors support a Bill, the frustration that they feel is not that a Bill comes to the House, is given a fair hearing and voted on. Their frustration is that a Bill is debated, but there is no opportunity once it comes back from Committee to the House for it to make progress on its merits. That is the frustration that the disabled lobby and people with disabilities will feel if the Bill fails to make progress because of time. We must have the Government with us.
I want to do a rather unusual thing. I want to examine the worries of Ministers' gurus and the ideologues in his party. I shall examine quickly three recent speeches—the Minister would say that they were very important speeches —made by three leading members of the Minister's party.
A fair analysis of the ideas of the modern Conservative party, certainly as expressed by its ideologues and leaders, would suggest not that there was anything wrong with the Bill but that it went along with the grain of political and ideological thinking in the Conservative party. I highlight the fact that, even given the philosophy of the modern high priests of the Tory party, the introduction of a piece of legislation such as the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill goes with the grain rather than against it.
Let us start with perhaps the least cerebral of the three thinkers—the Prime Minister. He made a speech which I believe was a serious attempt to restate his interpretation of modern Conservatism. He called the speech "Conservatism in the 1990s: Our Common Purpose". It was delivered, of all places, at the Carlton club on 3 February 1993. He said:
"When I became Leader of our Party, I spoke of 'carrying forward the Conservative tradition'. I spoke of Conservatism as 'a common sense view of life from a tolerant perspective'. I set out my aim to create a 'classless society'—and 'a nation at ease with itself'. A Britain in which effort is rewarded; and everyone has a stake in our country's future. A Britain where every youngster can aim high; every family can build for its own future. Dignity, security, independence, self-respect—these are the human aspirations we understand and we endorse. Conservatism in the 1990s has the ambition to bring them within the grasp of every citizen."

517
If that is not a ringing endorsement of the Bill, nothing is. It is a ringing endorsement of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood is trying to do in his Bill.
The Prime Minister continued:
"These are the instincts of a free people; an enterprising people; a generous people; a tolerant people. We believe in fostering freedom by giving people more power to choose for themselves. We believe in fostering tolerance by respecting the individual; by recognising every citizen's power to choose … we have four cardinal principles: the principles of choice, ownership, responsibility and opportunity for all."
That is the most extensive quotation from the Prime Minister that I have ever made, but I make the point to Conservative Members. He continued:
"we have always worked to meet people's aspiration to own their own homes; to have greater opportunities for themselves and their children; to enjoy the respect that follows from the exercise of choice. This has always been a great Tory tradition—a continuous thread in our thinking. When Disraeli spoke of 'the elevation of the condition of the people' he made it clear, even then, that he meant all the people: 'all the numerous classes of the realm, classes alike and equal before the law'. If this was not exactly 'a classless society', it already expressed many of the aspirations of one: the equal treatment of all citizens by the state, and the chance of advancement for all."
I am tempted to say that my case rests. Our case for the Bill rests because the Prime Minister and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Exeter will appreciate those quotations.
We have a Government and a Prime Minister in his most thoughtful mode giving the basis of what he sees as opportunities for all. We are talking today about opportunities for all disabled people.
I do not want to leave my quotations with the Prime Minister. Some Conservative Members do not listen only to the Prime Minister. Although some of them respect him as a Prime Minister, they do not respect him as a party philosopher, an ideologue or a great thinker about the future of Conservatism.
However, Conservative Members might listen to two other voices which I shall quote briefly. The first is the Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley). [Laughter.] In some wings of the party, he is seen as an ideologue and guru. He gave an important speech to The Spectator annual lecture on Wednesday 30 March 1994. That is the right-wing journal, not the spectator sport publication.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was entitled—a somewhat hackneyed title—"Conservative Ideas and Ideals Will Continue to Triumph". That was quite as stirring as the Prime Minister's title. He said:
"The intellectual tide which dominated the 80s is still flowing powerfully in our direction. Ideas of choice and competition, less government rather than more, self-reliance rather than dependency—still ring true with most people's experience and chime with their values."
Speaking of his long-term review of social security, he said that the Government's aim was
"also to reform the Social Security system on Conservative principles to make it a better system. That means, first encouraging personal responsibility. Second, we must try to reduce disincentives—to work, save, and provide for one's own family.
That is why we introduced Family Credit. And why I am introducing a disregard for child care costs to help parents return to work. Third, we must focus help on those in need…we should redouble our efforts to reduce other people's dependency—on government in general and local government in particular."
It is interesting to note that the right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with a quote from Churchill. He said:
518
"'Trust the people'. Winston Churchill's own words express the thought better than I or anyone else could manage: 'Let the people use their good common sense, multiply the choices which are open to them at every difficult phase in their lives. Make freedom spring from its source in their hearts and then indeed you will have a country which with wise government may be made to play a great part in the world.'"
I am sure that Conservative Members would agree that that is yet another endorsement of the Bill. It has been offered from one of their own Secretaries of State or, in common parlance, it is straight from right hon. Gentleman's box.
I want to finish with a quote from the real high priest of the Conservative party and I know that you will enjoy it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), made a speech to the North-East Fife Conservative Association. He said:
"I have no doubt at all the philosophy that shapes Conservative policy is closest to the beliefs of the majority of the British people.
We understand that it is our first duty to govern for the nation as a whole, not for partisan interests, to take decisions which will be judged wise in the long term, not just popular in the short term, to pursue the difficult virtues of thrift and providence rather than the easy option of satisfying every immediate demand."
One of the most marked features of the Bill is that it is not the result of yesterday's latest campaign. It is the result of one of the longest running political campaigns. Twelve attempts have been made to introduce such a Bill and this is the 13th. It is the culmination of years and years of effort by tens of thousands of people and hundreds of organisations. Those people do not represent a few siren voices.
I know that Conservative Members are obsessed with the notion of a few people. It brings to mind the popular expression of Burke about the crickets chirping under the leaves—there may have been many cows in the field, but all that could be heard were those half a dozen crickets. Conservative ideologues are keen to argue that we should listen to the quiet majority. It is interesting to recall that a year ago the Prime Minister described it as the "silent majority", but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has changed that term to the "quiet majority". They mean the same thing.
The fear is that a few people get the attention of the media and railroad through the House bad legislation, which imposes enormous duties and responsibilities on business and the community. It is thought that such legislation is very expensive, fouls up the economy and generally does a disservice to the country. I understand that obsession, although I do not agree with it. Conservative Members could hardly claim that the campaign for civil rights for disabled people comes in that category.
The campaign for those rights is run by the quiet majority. Those people have gone unheard for years. They have not had the chance to articulate their rights and demands or fulfil their ability to be full citizens. They are the very people to whom the Conservative Government should listen, especially if there is any truth behind the speeches of the ideologues, philosophers and gurus from whom I have quoted.
The Bill to which we are urging the Government to devote time and consideration is absolutely in the grain of those thinkers. I will not delay the House with any more quotations, although I could go on.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Do go on.
Mr. Sheerman: I have quoted those Conservative gurus to show that there is nothing to be afraid of but fear itself.
Conservative Members may argue that the Bill would be expensive to implement. They may argue that it would impose many regulations when another Bill, which has just finished its Committee stage, is designed to deregulate. They are worried that the Bill that we are discussing would centralise. The fact is, however, that the Bill would free that quiet majority, that enormous number of people.
A recent poll revealed that 75 per cent. of the population know someone with a disability well. That is equivalent to far more people than the usual quoted figure of 10,000 people with a disability in each constituency. It also covers the carers and families. We are talking not just about 6.25 million people with disabilities, but about the majority of the people who are touched by disability.
We are talking about the quiet majority. If Conservative Members are serious about the beliefs that have underpinned the Conservative party for the past 150 years, they must accept that the Bill is in tune with them. The Bill will do no harm to, or interfere with, people's ability to make a living; nor will it impose too many regulations. On the contrary, it will free a potential in our country that will aid the very process that Conservative Members believe to govern their party.
In the past few weeks, I have witnessed some interesting changes in parliamentary language. I have been here for 14 years and suddenly all sorts of things can be said that were judged unparliamentary when I first entered the House. I should like to conclude by breaking a minor rule, which the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire got away with earlier. He said that he chose his researcher, who has a severe disability, because he was a bloody good researcher. We support the Bill and we believe that Conservative Members should support it because it is a bloody good Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the word "bloody" considered to be parliamentary language?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): There are no words listed in "Erskine May" as inappropriate. It is for the judgment of the Chair. I thought that in the particular context in which that word was originally used it was appropriate. I do not applaud the fact that it was reused later by another hon. Member and would suggest that it is not repeated.
11.18 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I whole-heartedly support the principle behind the Bill because no one who is kind hearted and humane would want to discriminate against the disabled. I therefore pay my respects to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for his dedication to the Bill, and to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who is the original author of it.
Why are we in politics if not because we want to help those less able than ourselves? I am always very grateful that the good Lord provider has given me good health thus far and I value that greatly. I would not want to be one of the long-term sick or disabled.
I am sure that the 6.5 million disabled people in the country will welcome the Bill. However, we are discussing a Bill that will have long-term implications for most people
520
in the country, and therefore it is wise that we should consider it in detail and see whether there are any worries that should be tackled. Three questions need to be answered when we consider the Bill. What facilities and help are already available to the disabled and what is the Government's record in the sector? What are the implications of the Bill for the rest of the community? Does the Bill sensibly achieve the help for the disabled that it purports to achieve, or does it contain flaws? I shall explore those issues in more detail.
What help is already available? What do the Government already provide for the long-term sick and disabled? I suppose that one should start with the usual amount that is spent—that figure, which is always trotted out, of £16.5 billion. It is a huge figure and difficult to comprehend, except that it is up by 225 per cent. in real terms on the same period in 1979.
The Government have an excellent record of helping long-term sick and disabled people over the past 15 years. I do not want to go through the long list that I have here. Among other things, we set up extra help for special needs in education. We set up the Disablement Advisory Service. We introduced sheltered placement schemes. We have already altered the building regulations to take into account services required for the disabled.
In 1988, we required all grant-maintained schools to have facilities for children with special educational needs. We introduced the independent living fund, which enabled a large number of people to live independently. From 1989, all new licensed taxis were required to have wheelchairs so that they were accessible to disabled people. We introduced the mobility allowance, which was extended to the deaf, blind and amputees.
In the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, we imposed a duty on all local education authorities and the Further Education Funding Council to have regard to people with learning difficulties. We introduced the disability and orange badge schemes and introduced the disability and working allowances, which, among other things, extended help to 300,000 less severely disabled people and later provided a major stepping stone into employment. In 1993, we introduced the independent living fund to allow 18,000 people to live a more normal—a more independent—life.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House by how much in real terms individual disablement benefits have increased since 1979?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not have that figure off the top of my head, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are spending, as I said, about £16.5 billion on disabled people, which is up 225 per cent. in real terms on 1979. Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure in the form that he requires, the measures that I have outlined, and a few more that I will mention, prove that the Government are already sympathetic and understanding to the needs of long-term sick and disabled people.
Mr. Hendry: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, although the individual sums paid to people with disabilities have not increased dramatically, the massive increase in spending is accounted for because the Government have greatly widened the eligibility factors?

521
We are thereby able to help many more people than was the case 15 years ago and that, in itself, is a desirable and laudable objective.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome that thoughtful intervention, and my hon. Friend is right. Some of the figures that I have given show the wide spectrum of help that is available to a large number of people. It is not only the Department of Social Security that helps disabled people. As I have said, considerable help is available from the Department for Education and the Departments of Employment and of Transport, among others. Many Government Departments and agencies have a role to play in helping long-term sick and disabled people.
Mr. Alfred Morris: To help the hon. Gentleman, whereas salaries and wages have increased in real terms by much more than 20 per cent. in the past 15 years, the real value of individual disablement benefits has increased by only 1 per cent. The words "widening gap" have been used to describe the difference in expenditure now and 15 years ago, but the real widening gap—indeed, the yawning gap—is that created by what has happened to other people and what has happened to disabled people with regard to individual incomes. Much of the increase in public spending that the hon. Gentleman referred to is caused by demographic change and by more people being entitled to benefits than before.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Gentleman used the words, "a yawning gap". I am not sure that I would quite concur with him on that phrase. I am sure that he would also agree with me that the needs of long-term sick and disabled people are now much better understood than they were hitherto and that it has been possible to target what resources the state is able to give them in a much more focused way. The independent living fund is an example of that, enabling 18,000 people to live a more reasonable, a more independent, life.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe would agree that two things above all are necessary to give self-esteem to disabled people. The first is to be able to live independently without needing too much help from other people, and the second is to be employed. Therefore, as should be borne in mind when I discuss the part of the Bill that is concerned with employment, all of us would wish every disabled person wherever possible to be able to find a job because it gives him that self-esteem and that life fulfilment which everyone on all sides of the House wants.
To conclude my description of the help provided by the Government, the Education Bill will provide further help and the training and enterprise councils already have a duty to provide help for the disabled, and provide considerable help. The Department of Transport sponsored a trial scheme—the London dial-a-ride—and provided funds for two trials for low-floor wheelchairs on the buses in London and North Tyneside. As I shall discuss later, the Bill makes provision for providing wheelchair lifts on all public transport.
What are the implications of the Bill on the rest of the community? I intervened deliberately in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingswood because I wanted to explore those implications with him. Although we all applaud the aims of the Bill, if we are to consider it and sensibly to consider possible objections by employers' organisations,
522
we have a duty to provide them with an idea of the costs that will be imposed on them. We live in an increasingly competitive age and it is no good providing jobs for disabled people, or anyone else, only to impose such high costs on any business that eventually it is unable to compete in the rest of the world and goes out of business. We want long-term sustainability of businesses so that we can provide the maximum amount of employment.
Although I have no objection to the principle of the Bill —as I said, I applaud it—we have to examine every aspect of the Bill carefully with employers' organisations, employees' organisations and trade unions. I take on board what has already been said this morning about the wide range of consultation, but, as a result of what I have read, I think that before the Bill reaches the statute book a great deal more consultation needs to take place.
Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman tell Members of the House how much consultation there was with businesses a couple of years ago when the Government increased interest rates to such an extent that billions of pounds of extra costs were imposed on British industry? Is that the type of consultation that the hon. Member has in mind?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I regret that intervention because I thought that the debate had been of high quality until now. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government have to run a fiscal policy for the long-term benefit of the country. Whatever the rights or wrongs of imposing increased interest rates, it was obviously deemed necessary by the Government of the day to increase interest rates in the short term so that we could put the economy of the country on a sound footing. That is why we are now able to have an economy that has almost the lowest inflation, the lowest interest rates and the lowest unit wage costs in the European Community. Indeed, that is why we have the only economy in the European Community that is growing this year. It is why we have an economy in which unemployment has dropped by more than 200,000 in the past year alone. Clearly, the Government set the right fiscal framework for the country's economy, which has done a great deal of good for businesses.
As I explained earlier in my speech—if the hon. Member for Kingswood had been listening instead of intervening, he would have heard—the Bill is a long-term measure that will affect businesses. It is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman, when considering the Bill's detail, to ensure that it is right and strikes a sensible balance between the needs of the disabled and the needs of businesses. They have to keep their costs low and be able to compete with the rest of the world, as that enables them to employ even more staff—not only disabled people, but others. That is a difficult balance to strike and a difficult equation, but we need to ensure that we get it right.
The Bill sets up the Disability Rights Commission—the regulatory organisation that will police the provisions. Of course, the Bill must contain some method of policing—I do not object to that. We must consider the detail of the Bill. Paragraph 20 of the schedule deals with the powers of general investigation of the commission. I have no objection to the power of investigation into a business when it is suspected that an offence has been committed. However, a general power of investigation when there is no particular reason to suspect that an employer has committed an offence ranks alongside the sort of general

523
powers that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise currently have and the powers that we are about to give, under the Finance Bill, to the Inland Revenue. Businesses and individuals find such authoritarian powers offensive. I wonder whether it is necessary to include such a general power to request information when there is no suspicion of contravention of the Bill's provisions.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Race Relations Act 1976 gave the Commission on Racial Equality the power to carry out formal investigations even when no complaint of racial discrimination had been made? Where those formal investigations have been carried out, even where there has been no suggestion of discrimination, employers have recognised that often their procedures and practices may have discriminated indirectly. Those employers have found the formal investigations helpful in developing equal opportunity policies. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that that would be equally true in relation to discrimination on the grounds of disability?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the parallel with the race relations legislation, but two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. There is a growing tendency to pass legislation giving organisations unnecessarily authoritarian powers. Agricultural measures give officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the power to enter farms without notifying the landowner or tenant. Such power should not be given to organisations to interfere, as they do increasingly, in the lives of individuals or businesses. We are a democracy and should rely on the fact that one is innocent until proved guilty. Perhaps the Bill's promoter would look at the schedule's wording. I am all in favour of policing powers and a commission with policing powers, but could not we phrase the description of that power to ensure that there must be a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed before the commission investigates?
Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman think about the use of the phrase "authoritarian powers"? My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) mentioned the community relations powers—the Equal Opportunities Commission has similar powers. Their powers are not authoritarian, but are usually implemented on a happy and co-operative basis. They allow an investigation of policies on, for example, recruitment and promotion. A general report is made and most companies, local authorities or whoever is being investigated make the necessary changes and approach the investigations in a co-operative and positive way. The powers are not authoritarian, and do not work as if being implemented in a police state. I think that the hon. Gentleman is raising spectres that do not exist.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that interesting intervention. I am in favour of the commission conducting investigations on a voluntary basis, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but paragraph 20 contains virtually no qualification of that power. It is not reasonable to require information from any commercial organisation without the business or the employer being suspected of having committed an offence. I do not want to dwell on that detailed issue as it is not one of the main thrusts of the Bill, but it is nevertheless important.
524
While I welcome the principle that employers should not discriminate against disabled people, I believe that we must look at the details of the provision. I should like the Bill's promoter to look carefully at the clause dealing with how a business is run and the consideration that must be given to the needs of the disabled people employed in that business.
If one disabled person were employed, would that mean that the entire ethos of the business would have to be altered to accommodate that one person? If so, how could the business compete in an increasingly competitive world in which the European Community has, over the past 10 years, seen its share of world trade reduced? Those are details that need to be considered carefully before we enact the Bill. Clause 4 (2)(c) mentions the
"criteria or methods of administration that have an adverse effect on a person's opportunities".
Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingswood will explain how that provision will work in practice. I am genuinely interested.
Mr. Berry: If the hon. Gentleman supports the motion, the time will be made available for him and other hon. Members to raise just such issues on Report. If attempts are made to talk the Bill out on Report, the hon. Gentleman may never receive answers to his questions.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: In response to that intervention I must make clear the purpose of my speech. We are discussing a motion that asks for more time to debate the Bill. In considering whether to give more or less time to the Bill we must discuss its merits. I am not talking out the Bill today; I am merely mentioning one or two reservations that I have so that, before Report, other hon. Members can consider those reservations and table sensible amendments —I may want to do so. By flagging up my reservations and difficulties today, I give all hon. Members plenty of time to think about some of the Bill's weaknesses. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we all welcome and applaud the Bill's aims and aspirations, but any Bill has the ability to be improved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take and consider some of my reservations in the genuine spirit in which I opened my speech.
The Bill proposes a commission of between eight and 15 members. It provides for a quorum of at least five, which, with a commission of only eight, is a high hurdle to have to overcome. I ask the hon. Member for Kingswood to consider that and perhaps to be a little more prescriptive. A commission of between eight and 15 allows enormous discretion. With a commission of 15 people, a quorum of five might be realistic. The commission must be properly represented, and I am sure the promoter will want to consider that. The Bill provides for the commission to have a member from England, from Wales, from Scotland and from Northern Ireland, which is a laudable aim, but one or two other bodies might be represented on the commission —for example, Save the Children, which has a large membership.
As a chartered surveyor, I am interested in clause 8, which proposes alterations to the building regulations to ensure that all new extensions and buildings take into account the needs of disabled people. Again, that is a laudable aim, but it would impose a huge cost on the construction industry when the vast majority of extensions and new houses will not be occupied by disabled people. The hon. Member for Kingswood needs to consider that aspect carefully. If there is a reasonable prospect of a

525
building or extension being occupied by a disabled person, of course we would all want that person's needs to be considered, but a blanket provision for new extensions and buildings would impose a completely unnecessary cost on the construction industry, which would ultimately feed through to everybody.
Part IV covers a large number of organisations that will have to modify their buildings—hotels, schools, cinemas, ports, airports, clubs, sports grounds, council offices, telephone boxes and access to lawyers—to cater for the needs of disabled people, and all public liability and employers' insurance policies will have to take into account the increased costs caused by liabilities from disabled people.
Again, that is a laudable aim, but the lack of a realistic transitional period to allow that huge number of bodies to adapt their premises to deal with the needs of disabled people will impose a great cost on those bodies, which will be reflected in higher prices and will feed through to the general level of taxation. The hon. Member for Kingswood shakes his head, but that is the wording of the Bill. Nobody objects to such alterations, but the hon. Member must offer some realistic costings and a realistic timetable to the organisations and local authorities that would have to implement paragraphs (a) to (n) of clause 6(2).
The hon. Gentleman now points at the Minister. Perhaps the Government should make such costings, but somebody must do so before the Bill is enacted. I should add, in fairness, that clause 9 contains appropriate caveats to deal with the viability of the business and nature and costs of the actions in question. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the promoter of the Bill to offer an estimate of costs because, for example, a body responsible for local authority buildings or schools must have some idea of the timetable proposed for new buildings, old buildings and buildings in the pipeline. These serious questions must be addressed because they involve much public money.
Clause 16 applies the Bill to all Crown servants and properties. I have already said that the Bill has huge implications for the public purse. All buildings in the public sector will have to be altered to take the needs of disabled people into account. I should not be surprised if, under the clause, some lifts in this place would have to be ripped out and replaced to make them wide enough to take a wheelchair. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with that, and I am not necessarily criticising it, but we need to have an idea of the cost and of the timetable for such alterations.
Mr. Berry: As we have specifically said that the timetable for those changes should not be set out in the Bill but should be for the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval, to determine, how on earth does the hon. Gentleman think that we can respond to his specific comments? What is the alternative other than having the timetable in the hands of the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary approval? Does not that timetable then determine the cost and is that not why no hon. Member can say specifically what the cost would be? That is not set in concrete in the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I repeat—I cannot repeat often enough—that we all applaud the aims and aspirations of the Bill but if I, as a responsible Member of Parliament representing almost
526
90,000 constituents, am to be asked to vote for the Bill, the hon. Member for Kingswood must give some idea of its costs. I cannot responsibly vote for a Bill until I have been given guidance on the increase in the general level of taxation and in corporation tax to pay for those burdens on business. One must be given an idea of the costings. The Bill represents an open-ended cheque book.
Mr. Berry: It does not.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It does. I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member. I know that he does not like the tenor of my remarks, but many of the Bill's provisions, and therefore the costs that will be imposed on employers, are open ended, partly because it gives a great deal of discretion to the Secretary of State. Until we have an idea of how the Secretary of State is likely to use that discretion in practice, I cannot see how we can know what costs will be imposed on businesses.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that much of the opposition of small businesses and transport undertakings in the United States to the American legislation was based precisely on those grounds, yet experience in the United States disproves and discounts all those fears?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The Americans may become less competitive compared with emerging parts of the world. That is all very well as long as we accept the costs that the Bill would impose on businesses and the community at large and its probable implications for employment and our constituents understand that income tax would have to go up by several pence in the pound.
As I said, we applaud the aims of the Bill but, before we put it on the statute book, it is our responsibility to ascertain the costs involved. It may well be that the Secretary of State should provide details of the costs but, certainly, someone needs to do so, and rapidly, if, as the hon. Member for Kingswood wishes, it is to be passed before the summer. In any event, someone has a great deal of work to do.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to keep shaking his head—I know that he dislikes the tenor of my speech—but he must co-operate with the Secretary of State because he knows the Bill's background, having been involved in its drafting. Before Report, it is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to consult the Secretary of State to ensure that the House is provided with the information that it requires.
On behalf of my disabled constituents, I welcome the thrust of the Bill. It is right that we find out where discrimination against disabled people occurs. I cannot stress too highly the fact that I am grateful to have so far enjoyed good health. I meet disabled constituents and I am sympathetic to their needs. I am always prepared to help them obtain every benefit that the Government provide; and, as I have already explained, the Government provide a wide range of such benefits.
Some of the Bill's aims are extremely laudable, but I hope that the hon. Member for Kingswood will take into account some of my remarks and will provide the information that the House requires. I also hope that he will examine some of the Bill's weaknesses. I do not have time this morning to deal with all of them but I should be delighted to go through them in detail with the hon.

527
Gentleman to see whether I can spot more loopholes and to discover whether some of my fears could be allayed by the tabling of appropriate amendments on Report. The Bill that ends up on the statute book needs to be effective and needs to achieve the aims for which we all strive on behalf of our disabled constituents, of whom there are an average of 10,000 in a typical constituency.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's efforts in trying to achieve legislation whose aim is to oppose discrimination against disabled people.
11.52 pm
Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome the motion and am pleased to support it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We are keen to extend the rights of all citizens and enshrine them in law in a way that, unfortunately, the Government's toothless charters are unable to do. Disabled people do not want only charters; they want and deserve civil rights, and they want them enshrined in law. That is something that only the House can do, yet the House epitomises the very discrimination that the Bill aims to outlaw.
How many Members of Parliament are disabled? There are more than 6 million disabled people in Britain, accounting for more than 10 per cent. of the population. Obviously, 10 per cent. of Members of Parliament are not disabled, and it is hard to believe that disabled people's under-representation here, as in so many walks of life, does not have a great deal to do with the institutionalised discrimination that disabled people suffer.
Being under-represented means that the disabled people of Britain can do no more than depend on us to guard their interests. It is a responsibility which I feel keenly, and which I hope to honour. I only wish that the Government were able to feel that responsibility in the same way. I know that many Conservative Back Benchers do, and I wish that the Government would follow their lead.
If the Government had been able to feel that responsibility, we should not be here this morning, debating this excellent motion tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), which calls on the Government to give the Bill Government time.
Report and Third Reading have been allotted second place on Friday 6 May. As we all know, that gives the Government every opportunity to talk out a Bill which we know only too well they oppose in principle. The Government were perfectly happy to do the same thing last Friday, when they chose to talk out the Energy Conservation Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Among other things, that Bill would have provided money for the insulation of the homes of the elderly and the disabled to cushion them against the iniquitous imposition of value added tax on fuel. This Bill is also far too important to be treated in that way.
I deplore the Government's instincts which seem to be to sabotage Bills that they do not support. Whether or not they support this Bill, I ask them to consider whether it is proper not to dedicate sufficient time to it. As I said, the disabled people of Britain are relying on us to look after their interests.
People who are disabled are so called not only because they are confined to a wheelchair or are blind; what disables them is the fact that they cannot get access to buildings, that written material is not available in braille,
528
that work is denied them because the workplace cannot accommodate a particular disability, or that an employer is prejudiced against disabled people. The list is endless, and its existence is an indictment of us all. It amounts to discrimination that would be wholly unacceptable if it were targeted against women or ethnic minorities.
If a group of black people was told by the owners of a holiday camp that they could not book a holiday at his establishment because they would upset other guests, there would, quite rightly, be a national outcry and a prosecution. However, it is allowed if the group consists of people with cerebral palsy. Indeed, it recently happened.
If a woman were refused a job because the employer could not be bothered to install changing facilities suitable for her, there would also be a national outcry and a prosecution, but if the applicant were in a wheelchair or had controlled epilepsy, that employer would be within his or her rights to put the application straight into the bin without a second thought. That has also happened.
The Government have faced private Members' Bills seeking civil rights for disabled people several times in recent years. Such Bills have had cross-party support. The last time this Bill was debated, it received support from members of all parties and a total of 231 hon. Members voted in favour. Not one hon. Member voted against it, but, whenever such a Bill has come before the House, the Government have taken effective steps to block it and have argued that legislation in this context would create too much red tape and would be too expensive. They seem incredible reasons for resisting the claim of more than 6 million people, who are seeking only the rights enjoyed by the rest of the population.
In the country at large, people understand that everyone is part of society, and that, if any members of that society are grossly disadvantaged, the whole of society suffers. If the Government can justify their arguments against giving disabled people rights that most of the rest of us take for granted, let them make their case in a proper debate, and let the House and the country judge their efforts.
If the Government do not give sufficient time for the Bill to complete all its stages, there is only one conclusion that the country can draw—that the Government are frightened, that their arguments could not convince the House, and that they would scandalise the country.
The Bill will be implemented if the House is allowed to vote on the issue. I am certain that right hon. and hon. Members could not in all conscience vote against a Bill whose whole purpose is to make it possible for disabled people to take their rightful place in society from which they are at present in so many ways excluded.
The Government should have the courage to prove me wrong. All I ask is that they should accept that the Bill is extremely important, not only to disabled people, who are directly affected, but to the moral health of the nation. Today and every day, until the Bill is enacted, disabled people will be discriminated against in a way that should be utterly unacceptable. I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.
12 noon
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise and understand the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) tabled the motion. Having taken a private Member's Bill, fortunately successfully, through the House a few years ago, I recognise that any successful

529
attempt needs adequate parliamentary time. I believe that such a sensitive and important issue should be properly debated in the House and that proper time should be given to it.
I recognise that it is within the power and remit of individual Members of Parliament to talk out a Bill. I have just been talking in the Tea Room with an hon. Member who, single-handedly, talked out a Bill that we all thought was a good thing at the time. I hope that, if this Bill is not successful, the Government will draw up, following the kind of consultation that I shall mention later, their own proposals effectively to outlaw discrimination against people with disabilities.
Although I have reservations about the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke about many aspects that cause me to pause—I believe that there is a need to ensure that the rights of disabled people are underpinned by legislation. I say that not only because I am secretary of the parliamentary human rights group, but because I see so many practical ways in which disabled people are discriminated against.
I also believe that, by strengthening the rights of a particular, possibly vulnerable, group in society, one underpins the rights of everyone in that society. On those grounds, I hope that the Government will take a constructive view, irrespective of the Bill's fate.
Equally, I recognise that the present position, although perhaps not as dire as some make out, is not acceptable. On 11 March, a number of constituents came to the House to talk to me. I was frankly horrified by what they told me about the ways in which disabled people, especially wheelchair-bound disabled people—although not exclusively such people—were denied access to places that the vast majority of the rest of us would regard as a God-given right. I refer to places such as cinemas, public halls, from which, as the hon. Member for Exeter said on Second Reading, subnormal people were banned, and restaurants. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable, irrespective of the exclusions from employment which, sadly, so many disabled people have to suffer.
I mention in this regard the totally reprehensible activities of Hereford and Worcester county council, which is now controlled by a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrats. The council has decided recently, not as a cost-cutting measure as it claims in public—in private, the council admits differently—to take away the "wages" of disabled people who attend a social education centre in my constituency.
For many years, they have been used to receiving such wages as a reward for their work, and to get them used to getting back into the wider world of employment. That is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face with a vengeance. It is entirely vindictive. I take this opportunity of a public platform to urge the county council to ensure that its actions match its rhetoric in favour of disabled people by reinstating those appalling cuts.
I remind the House of the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on Second Reading. This matter is not purely one of human rights; it is one way to alleviate natural hardships. It is not
530
wrong to say that, although the vast majority of disabled people are as cheerful as anyone in the House, they inevitably suffer as a result of their disabilities.
My hon. Friend said that disabled people were resilient in the extreme. He then said that they accepted their responsibilities as disabled persons every minute of every day of every week of every year. Parliament should try to construct a framework that allows disabled people to overcome the difficulties and to fulfil those responsibilities themselves rather than have other people do it for them.
There is nothing worse for any disabled person—this happens too often socially—than to be condescended to, and to be talked to as though he or she had mental problems because he or she is in a wheelchair. Sadly, however well-meaning, too many people do that.
The need for legislation has been clearly made out, but I am not sure that the Bill is the appropriate way to legislate. I have been slightly struck by the somewhat Jesuitical tone of the debate. When someone raises a perfectly valid objection to the Bill, it is said that one has a down on the disabled, that one does not want to help them, and that one does not want any legislation for them. Such political correctness is not conducive to the rational debate that is needed to ensure that any legislation is effective, is not counter-productive and helps disabled people in the way that we desire.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in taking our job as Members of Parliament seriously, we have a duty to point out the flaws in legislation? That does not mean that we are in favour of discrimination for the disabled. We are just doing our duty as Members of Parliament.
Mr. Coombs: I agree. Although I cannot remember the exact words, I refer my hon. Friend to the words of Edmund Burke. He said that we owe our constituents our judgment as much as the judgment of their interests, and that we should betray them if we acted otherwise. My hon. Friend has made a valuable point.
Mr. Fabricant: Will not my hon. Friend concede that, while pointing out the costs or disbenefits of any legislation, one should also point out the benefits? Just as there may be costs, albeit staggered over an indefinite period, as a result of the Bill, there will also be benefits. A substantial proportion of the 6.25 million disabled people will be able to come off state benefit and to start earning money, while doing a useful job which will help their self-esteem. Heaven forbid, they may even pay Inland Revenue taxation into the nation's coffers.
Mr. Coombs: I agree with my hon. Friend. I never said that rational debate should preclude balanced debate. It is very important that that point is made. Equally, however, we are entitled to ask whether the legislation will target precisely the people that we think ought to be targeted.
Something that is slightly difficult to question in a somewhat politically correct, intellectual climate is the definition of "disabled". It seems slightly curious that, when every other level of health indicator in the country, including life expectancy and infant mortality, indicates that the general health of the population is rising, those people who are eligible to be regarded as disabled also goes on rising.
Although we talk of 6.5 million people and 10,000 people for every constituency, I would need to look

531
slightly askance at that. It is significant that, over the past 15 years, the number of disabled people who have been helped with care and mobility needs by the Government has risen from 360,000 to no less than 2 million.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: While recognising that the health of the nation is improving, we also have to consider the statistics that show that many people, especially young people, who become disabled, often through motor cycle or car accidents, were fit and healthy until that moment of impact. Obviously, there has been a huge increase in those numbers, because, with medical technology and care, many people survive today who, perhaps even a decade ago, would not have survived in the community.
Mr. Coombs: That is a reasonable point. On the other hand, my motor cycle action group tell me that accident statistics are also falling, so the number of people involved in an accident in the first place is also being reduced.
Sir John Hannam: On that point, would my hon. Friend accept that most of the increases in the number of disabled people receiving benefits have come about because of the identification of people with handicaps? Until recent years, many disabled people in our society were completely hidden and not identifiable. It is because of successive Acts of Parliament—notably the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act promoted back in 1969-70 by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—that identification of disabled people has resulted in them receiving benefits.
Mr. Coombs: I accept that; obviously, in a more sophisticated society, that will be an inevitable process. However, it is very important that we only identify as disabled those who are—I know it is a moveable feast—genuinely disabled. One thing that has caused some concern among my constituents is the orange badge scheme, which for too many people, moved away from what was originally intended, was more widely spread and, possibly, was abused by some people. I do not think that that does the cause of disabled people generally any good whatever.
Mr. Alfred Morris: As the author of the orange badge scheme, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that there are penalties available to us for any abuse of the scheme? Originally, there was a gross under-reckoning of the number of people who would be entitled to that kind of mobility help. We could tell that because the Department of Transport did not ever believe that more than a million people could legitimately claim an orange badge.
However, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to devalue the importance of the scheme, which can make all the difference between getting off the pavement and on to the road for severely disabled people. I know that he is not intending to do that, but I hope that he will emphasise to local authorities and others that there are penalties available to deal with abuse.
Mr. Coombs: Of course I would not want to devalue a scheme which many in my constituency value and have found very useful. The point that I am making is that we must ensure that our resources are accurately targeted, and that we do not undermine the work that we are trying to do
532
for the disabled by allowing people to take advantage of the scheme. I am not saying that that is happening in a wide context, but it should be borne in mind.
It is also important, when one has a rational discussion, to try to analyse the fate of disabled people over the past few years and decide whether legislation is likely to improve that outlook. I happen to believe that discrimination anywhere in the world is best eliminated ultimately by changes in attitude, which may or may not be prompted by changes in legislation as much as by anything else.
One of the reasons, I think, why, fortunately, for the vast majority of the population—although not in certain parts of London—racial discrimination is on the decline is that people are seeing how futile it is, and are gradually recognising the enormous contribution that ethnic minorities have to offer society. I recognise that, as Martin Luther King said,
"Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
Therefore, I also understand that anybody who is minded to act in a grossly discriminatory way against disabled people may well pause if legislation is available. That is why I am agreeing on the need for legislation, but it is the kind of legislation proposed with which I may have some argument.
One does not want to put the record over the past 15 years in political terms, as it is not necessarily the record of the Government. There are so many other organisations involved in looking after the disabled that to do so would be wrong, but it has been a record of a gradual improvement in services available for the disabled. Indeed, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter talked about "dramatically improved financial support" for the disabled. Certainly, in terms of the taxpayer, a threefold increase in real terms over the past 15 years in the amount of money spent on the long-term sick and disabled speaks for itself.
Recent initiatives, such as the disability living allowance and, especially, the invalid care allowance, which helps 200,000 carers who look after people with disabilities, are important. I was pleased to hear the Minister talk of the success of the Employment Service in getting disabled people into the kind of jobs that we want to see them in and where they ought to be. PACTs—placing, assessment and counselling teams—in the Employment Service have had an important role to play in that area.
In transport, it is good to see that, gradually, British Rail, the taxi service and the buses are all waking up to the idea that provision must be made for people who are disabled, especially those in wheelchairs. I pay tribute in my constituency to Dial-A-Ride, which does a first-class job. I know that there has been a significant increase in the Government grant to Dial-A-Ride in London over the past 15 years. However, my local service does a first-class job in ensuring that disabled people are mobile, where otherwise they would not be. I understand that Dial-A-Ride in my area has two minibuses to do that important work, although—again, a little advertisement—it is short of drivers, and I am sure that any volunteers would be gratefully received.
There has been a huge upsurge in investment through the health service. I shall not go into that, except to say that the number of occupational therapists has risen exponentially by about 76 per cent. The number of speech

533
and language therapists, although far too thin on the ground—I have an especial problem in my constituency—has also risen by about 57 per cent. in 15 years. Other approaches to disability, such as the Steiner method and conductive education, in which I have an especial interest, have received Government support over the past few years in an imaginative way.
Also, in my constituency and elsewhere, there has been an upsurge in the work of voluntary organisations, such as Open Sesame and Citizens Advocacy and, in co-ordinating the activities of voluntary organisations, DIAL, the disabled information line in my constituency, has been important in guiding people and as a gateway to solving problems.
I have gone into that at some length because the general provision for disabled people in Britain has dramatically improved over the past 15 years, and that ought to be recognised when dealing with such legislation.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) acknowledged that one of the counter arguments is that the Bill might be too costly or unworkable in practice. Cost is, of course, important. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter quoted a Dr. Stephen Duckworth, who is disabled and who has done much work on behalf of the disabled. Dr. Duckworth acknowledges that concerns over litigation, bureaucracy and unquantifiable costs for business and taxpayers are important and cannot be shrugged off.
If we are to rely upon business to implement many of the measures that will make the proposed legislation workable and practicable, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that anyone who introduces a Bill of this sort has the support of business as far as that is possible.
We talked earlier about prior consultation, and I recognise what the hon. Member for Kingswood said about the difficulty of engaging in it. I know from my own experience that it is difficult to consult when we do not know where we shall find ourselves following the ballot for private Members' Bills.
It is crucial, however, that, before legislation is introduced and implemented, an appropriate cost-benefit analysis of the sort mentioned in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) be undertaken by the Government or some outside organisation. I hope that the Government will get on with that work as quickly as possible. Without that sort of study it is difficult to analyse the financial consequences of the Bill.
I recognise that there is a power of exemption for the building and facilities measures that are set out in the Bill, and that the concepts of undue hardship and reasonableness are introduced. I am slightly concerned that, because there is a relationship to the financial resources of those who are required to implement these measures, there may be an element of inconsistency, and therefore arbitrariness. It is possible that there will be discrimination against shops, for example, that are required to make their premises available to disabled people.
In about two months' time—I have done this in the past—I shall be involved in a walkabout in the three major towns in my constituency with Open Sesame, which basically is a group that works for the disabled. We take someone round the towns who is in a wheelchair and
534
observe the sort of problems that he or she faces—with pavements, for example, or access to shops. Another example is access to a bank counter.
If some shops are required by virtue of their financial standing to carry out improvements for the disabled, and next door to them is a shopkeeper who is not required so to do—he may be a one-man band—that might well introduce arbitrariness. That will not be healthy, and it is something that should be considered.
Sir John Hannam: May I remind my hon. Friend of the American experience? When businesses realised that there was a potential but untapped new business sector of 49 million disabled people—there are 6.5 million in this country—and when business men saw the shop down the road adapted, or the hotel, to accommodate the new potential business, they jolly soon followed suit. They thought that it was a sound investment to make.
Mr. Coombs: That may be a benign effect of the Bill. Whether that effect will become immediately apparent is another matter. We should be aware of inconsistencies that could result if we were not to consider these matters in some detail.
Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend talked earlier of the county council that has control in his constituency. He said that it had not been that helpful towards the disabled. Does he agree that, when local shops—that was his example—or county councils provide facilities for the disabled, they are properly thought out?
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall briefly give an example of a facility that was made available by Staffordshire county council. At great expense to the council tax payer, it provided a ramp leading up and into county hall. It also provided electrically operated glass doors, which would open automatically to enable disabled people to gain access to the premises. Unfortunately, the doors opened outwards, not inwards. They would hit the wheelchair and shoot the disabled person back down the ramp. The initial installation cost a fortune, and its correction cost almost as much again.
Mr. Coombs: That example shows how careful we must be to ensure that appropriate adaptations are made for disabled people. That means that there must be co-ordination between private and public bodies.
I have grave doubts about whether it is necessary to have a Disability Rights Commission. The hair on my head tends to stand up when I read the powers that are proposed for the commission. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to powers of general investigation to determine whether compliance is adequate when set against the requirements of the Bill.
I do not know what the likely financial cost will be of helping people to take their cases to court or industrial tribunals. I am appalled by the idea—it is argued that the Bill does not have any element of positive discrimination—that a necessary qualification for membership of the commission should be positively discriminatory in itself. I refer to the requirement that three quarters of the members of the commission should themselves be disabled. The idea that those who are not disabled cannot have some empathy —obviously there must be some disabled people on the commission—with the problems of disabled people is possibly insulting.
I understand that, in the United States, the rights of disabled people, if they are overturned, as it were, by

535
legislation, are pursued by individual Government Departments. That seems to be not a bad approach, so long as there is access to the courts and employment tribunals. I do not believe that the commission is necessary. We were talking earlier about being Jesuitical; the potential of the DRC, as it no doubt will become known in this age of acronyms, is horrendous.
Paragraphs (a) and (c) of clause 2 have been drawn extremely wide in terms of discrimination. I am concerned that employers may so construct their recruitment procedures to make it more rather than less difficult to get jobs, precisely because they are terrified of being accused of prejudice—when disabled people come forward for jobs alongside able-bodied people—if for good reasons they choose able-bodied applicants rather than disabled ones. There may well be a fall in the number of places available for disabled people, rather than the reverse which the Bill expects.
Again on employment rights, clause 4(4) refers to making "reasonable accommodation" for disabled people. Clause 4(4)(a) refers to
"making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities"—
and we would all agree with that. Clause 4(4)(b) refers to
"job restructuring, instituting part-time or modified work schedules".
The DRC, or employment tribunals which look at the matter in a particularly perverse way, may not interpret that type of job restructuring as applying just to disabled people. It may well be necessary for a factory manager to make substantial changes to the work scheduling of his whole company to accommodate the needs of only one or two disabled people.
If that were to happen, it would massively increase costs for industry, would be very disruptive and would ultimately be detrimental to the economic growth which is absolutely vital to ensure that we have resources available for disabled people in the first place. The Bill's sponsors should discuss that point in detail with representatives of industry, and in particular with organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation.
I make my final point not as a chartered surveyor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury did, but as someone who has been involved in the building trade for 22 years. I am very concerned about clause 8, which refers to new constructions and the need to
"design and construct new buildings, extensions … in such a manner that they are readily accessible to, and useable by, disabled people".
In one sense—peace and motherhood—we cannot disagree with that. However, how far will that be taken?
I am aware that there is a test of reasonableness, but the DRC or particularly unsympathetic building inspectors may say, "Given that you are Wimpey or Tarmac and a relatively large company with the necessary resources, why shouldn't you make every house on the site readymade for a disabled person to move into?" Those adaptations would involve considerable cost and would necessitate wider doors, wheelchair access to stairs and so on. I believe that such a demand would be retrograde. It would raise construction costs considerably, and would therefore be counter-productive in the long term for disabled people.
Although there is no doubt that there is a need for legislation to protect the interests of disabled people and to ensure that the quite abhorrent practice of discriminating
536
against them unnecessarily is outlawed in this country, I am not convinced that the Bill is the right way to achieve it.
Most of all, I impress on the sponsors and the Government that, as my former boss, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), used to say when he was taking Bills through the House, "The devil is in the detail." Unless we consider the costs and benefits in detail, unless we consult the people who will be required to implement the measures, we may well end up with legislation which is not only unworkable and very costly, but which does not do what we want it to do, which is to end discrimination against disabled people.
12.32 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: The House will not be surprised to learn that I most warmly welcome this debate and as warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) both on his good fortune in the ballot and on his unhesitating choice of motion. This is not by any means the first time that we have sung from the same hymn sheet. For more than 20 years now, we have acted in the closest rapport in seeking to make life better for Britain's 6.5 million people with disabilities and their families.
Never in all that time has the hon. Member for Exeter faltered in conferring on disabled people whatever luck he has had in ballots for private Members' Bills and motions. Without exception, the organisations of and for disabled people are also most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this opportunity to emphasise again to the Government the very urgent need now to enact a Bill which Stephen Bradshaw, the director of the Spinal Injuries Association, who also chairs Voluntary Organisations for Anti-Discrimination Legislation—VOADL—describes as the most important legislation this century on disabled people's rights.
It will be recalled that when I first drafted and asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading on 31 January 1992, the Government's attitude was said to be one of "benevolent neutrality". I quote the words of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in an interview he gave the BBC "You and Yours" programme the day before the debate. With only one exception, all who spoke in the debate gave the Bill's principles their support. The exception was the former Member for Kingswood, who talked the Bill out, having first said that he would not do so. He subsequently made a personal statement of "unreserved apologies" to Mr. Speaker Weatherill and the House as a whole for misleading us in his speech on the Bill.
Nevertheless, the Bill's chance of enactment had been destroyed and disabled people all over Britain felt cheated by what had happened. My noble Friend Lady Lockwood later introduced the Bill for me in the House of Lords where it completed all its stages. Its provisions were also endorsed by this House when it approved a motion that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 26 February 1993.
To keep up the momentum created by the approval of that motion, versions of the Bill specifically to benefit disabled people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were then introduced by my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). All three Bills had overwhelming

537
all-party support. Some 90 per cent. of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament wanted the benefits of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill for the disabled people they represent from the only Parliament that can legislate for them.
In the case of Northern Ireland—a parliamentary first if ever there was one—all 17 of its Members of Parliament backed the Bill; but their Bill, like those for Scotland and Wales, was blocked by Government Whips entirely without debate. As the Minister knows, the intervention of the Whips to block legislation about which he had said he was "benevolently neutral" provoked expressions not only of anguish but of despair from disabled people all over Britain. They were in despair not least because it now appeared that even the support of a majority in this House and the Bill's successful passage through the House of Lords, where not a single vote was cast against it at any stage, meant nothing to the minority in this House who were determined to use any and every procedural ploy to block the Bill. The treatment of the Bill at Second Reading on 31 January 1992, and the antics of Government Whips Friday after Friday, were described by one of the most respected disabled people in Britain as "a nauseating farce" and as
"a disgrace to parliamentary democracy".
Then came some good news when my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) won a high place in this Session's ballot for private Members' Bills. It was my hon. Friend whose early-day motion had demonstrated that there is a clear parliamentary majority for the Bill in this House and I had no hesitation in asking him to promote the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in this Session. There could not have been a better choice and I am most grateful to him for having secured both a Second Reading for the Bill and a successful conclusion to its Committee stage, during which every opportunity was given to Ministers —and everyone else with an interest in its provisions—to table any amendments they wanted to see made.
My hon. Friend has shown himself strong in regard to principle and flexible about detail. In addition to accepting amendments to the Bill proposed in Committee, he will be tabling amendments of his own at Report to meet every constructive point raised with him upstairs.
Among the amendments to the Bill accepted in Committee, none was more important than those about giving deaf and hard of hearing people equal access to technical communications. That is something the rest of us take for granted, as a civil right, but a deaf person cannot get the same ease of access to the public telephone system as a hearing person.
Equal access to justice for deaf and hard of hearing people was also dealt with by amending the Bill in Committee. Such access must no longer be a privilege for hearing people only. It is a civil right, but as of now deaf people could face a police interview without adequate communication support and could quite easily be exposed to gross miscarriages of justice.
There was no dissent from that in Committee and, if the Bill achieves nothing else, its enactment will be more than justified by what it can achieve for deaf and hard of hearing people. Tim Sargeant of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and Jane Oberman of Deaf Accord worked
538
long and hard to inform parliamentary opinion of the importance of the amendments approved in Committee and we should all be most grateful to them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said in Committee, and repeated today, his door was not only wide open to suggestions for amending the Bill there, but was virtually off its hinges. No promoter of a Bill could possibly have been more reasonable and responsive in his approach to suggestions for improving its provisions. My hon. Friend has been, and is now, as ready to discuss reservations about the Bill raised by the Institute of Directors as he is to listen to any other organisation or individual with an interest in the Bill.
The institute is said still to be concerned about some of the Bill's provisions, but I cannot believe that company directors in this country are less capable of coping with civil rights legislation for disabled people than their counterparts in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Sweden. Employers in all those countries are already implementing legislation with the same purpose and, in many cases, the same provisions as those of this Bill.
There is no evidence of whingeing among them, and indeed the response of employers in the United States has proved wholly worthy of the challenge made to them by President Bush when he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. He said:
"You can now unlock a splendid resource of untapped human potential that will enrich us all".
That there remains a huge untapped human potential here in Britain is utterly beyond dispute. Nor is it wholly the fault of employers in the private sector, although official studies show that employers there are six times more likely to turn down a disabled person for an interview even if her or his qualifications are identical to those of a non-disabled applicant. That statistic shouts the word "discrimination" and many thousands of employers openly state that, whatever the qualifications of disabled job seekers, they will never interview them.
What of the public sector? A recent report shows that 100,000 more disabled people would obtain jobs if public sector employers were to achieve the 3 per cent. employment quota established by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1994. Only 0.7 per cent. of employees in the public sector are disabled people and, in many Departments of state, the percentage is very much lower. The Home Office employs only 0.3 per cent., or one tenth, of the 3 per cent. quota; while, according to the latest figures I have seen, not one disabled person is employed at 10 Downing street.
I most strongly appeal to employers in the public and private sectors alike to recognise the abilities of disabled people and what they have to contribute to industry and society. They seek not the dependence of social security benefits, but the dignity of becoming taxpayers. They crave the right to be judged on their merits and the freedom to compete on fair terms with everyone else. They do not want privilege, but simply to be treated like other people when it comes to jobs, enjoying their leisure and living their lives as they want to do.
They do not argue for blind bus drivers or deaf piano tuners; nor do they believe that all acts of discrimination can be ended overnight. It is unfair discrimination that they want to see eliminated and they accept that it will take time for this Bill to achieve its full purpose. They point out, as does the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for

539
Deaf People in his letter to all Members of Parliament earlier this week, that the Bill as now drafted provides for full consultation with employers before regulations are made by the Secretary of State and that it protects individual employers against regulations that would inflict "undue hardship" or that fails in any particular case "the test of reasonableness" provided for in the Bill.
I have had, of course, a national correspondence about this Bill ever since moving its Second Reading on 31 January 1992 and could quote cases galore of blatantly unfair discrimination against disabled people. All of them underline the importance of this motion. I shall refer here, however, to only three such cases.
The first is that of a physically disabled young man with a brilliant degree who was told by his employer that, because he was disabled, he would be paid less than other new employees for doing exactly the same work. The second case is that of a woman appointed to a senior civilian post with a major police authority who, because of her disability but with no justification on grounds of special risk, was refused entry to its pension scheme. My third case is that of a young graduate who became hearing-impaired by meningitis after a serious road accident when she was seven. Specialising in accountancy, she won the top degree of her year at Manchester university when she was 21, but the only job she had for more than two years afterwards was a temporary one at the check-out counter in a local store during the Christmas period. Her hearing aid enables her to use a telephone and to work normally, but she was rejected again and again by accountancy firms in favour of other applicants, some of them her contemporaries at university, whose qualifications were much inferior to her own. She told me in a letter:
"To mention you are disabled makes it virtually certain that you will not even be interviewed for a job".
How can any employer, or anyone else, possibly sanction that kind of discrimination against a disabled young woman who simply wants the same opportunities as everyone else to earn her own living?
Speaking in September 1991, shortly before I published the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the Prime Minister said:
"I believe deeply that all men and women should be able to go as far as talent, ambition and effort can take them. There should be no barriers … I want a society that encourages each and everyone to fulfil his or her potential to the utmost."
How, then, can he possibly justify the tactics of obstruction that have been used against the Bill, more particularly by Whips acting officially as members of his Government? Has he seen The Sun's description of his Government's tactics as "chicanery" and the very strong support for the Bill elsewhere in the press? Ought he not now either to withdraw what he said in September 1991 or stop obstructing this Bill? If he meant what he said then, he must surely welcome today's motion and hasten the Bill's progress to the statute book.
The right hon. Gentleman must also accept the justice of what Lord Renton, his predecessor as Conservative Member of Parliament for Huntingdon and a distinguished lawyer, told the House of Lords when speaking in the Third Reading debate on the Bill there on 4 November 1992. I do not quote the noble Lord in direct speech, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what he said was that he found it extraordinary and not very creditable that legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people had not already been enacted. He went on to say
540
that, after all the thought given to the Bill in the House of Lords, he did not believe many hours of discussion would be necessary in the Commons. Yet the principles of the Bill have now been debated for more than 15 hours on the Floor of this House and its details for very many hours more in Committee. Are not Lord Renton's words the most compelling case of all for approving the motion today and enacting the Bill without further delay?
At an hour-long meeting with the Prime Minister, he told me that cost was the first of three reasons for his reservations about the Bill. While he readily accepted that unfair discrimination against disabled people was "a very real problem", he said that any action to tackle it must be "without cost implications". In other words, we can afford civil rights for everyone else in this country, but not for disabled people. They and their organisations find this deeply offensive. They point out that there was no mention of any cost factor in the Prime Minister's declaration of his belief in equal opportunities for all in September 1991. That declaration was as unambiguous as it was widely circulated.
The Prime Minister's second criticism of the Bill when we met was that it does not
"sit comfortably with the Government's policy on deregulation".
But nor does the legislation on gender and race, and that criticism is an implied threat to the continued existence of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.
The third criticism put to me by the Prime Minister was that the Bill takes "too comprehensive" an approach to the problem. His preference was for "piecemeal change". But discrimination against disabled people cannot be solved ad hoc. As one employer told me recently:
"To end discrimination in the workplace, you must not only protect disabled people there but also achieve for them equality of access to training and transport among many other facilities and services."
In the employer's view, "piecemeal change" would be an attempt to try to divide the indivisible and a total waste of time and money.
What is very sad is that Britain used to lead the world in legislating to make life better for disabled people. That is why, when I was the Minister in the late 1970s, I was invited to chair the World Planning Group to draft the "Charter for the 1980s" for disabled people worldwide. Now we lag behind many other countries. They have seen that today there is no more important issue for disabled people than that of civil rights; and, indeed, that fully assured civil rights are now the defining principle of all enlightened policy making on disability. They have demonstrated by the legislation that their Parliaments have enacted that what we are discussing in this debate is not an idea whose time has come, but one whose time came, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, when the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, CORAD, so ably chaired by Sir Peter Large, reported to the Government in favour of legislation to end unfair discrimination against disabled people in 1982, since when one Minister after another has refused to implement the report.
It was made very clear when I appointed CORAD in 1979 that it was the then Labour Government's firm intention to act on its report; but it is in other countries, not here in Britain, that the report has so far had its main effect. There, the report was read by Ministers who were prepared to act; but at least we can take some pride in the fact that

541
it was in this country that the case for legally protecting disabled people against unfair discrimination was first fully documented in an official report.
The Government may wish to argue that for the House to approve this motion would be to act without precedent. But, as we have heard today, not least from the hon. Member for Exeter, that is not the case. In fact, time was found by the then Government, with full co-operation from the Conservative Opposition, for my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill to reach the statute book on 29 May 1970. My Bill could not possibly have become law before the dissolution on that date without extra time being given by the Government for its final stages. That ought surely to be a good enough precedent for approving this motion, which is, after all, about a Bill which might be described as a lineal descendant of the 1970 Act.
What this motion is basically about is keeping faith with disabled people and restoring their faith, and that of all who work to help them, in this House of Commons. If they are sceptical about the parliamentary process, even sometimes now a little cynical, we need look no further for the cause than the treatment of the Bill that this motion seeks to enact by a minority in the House who have been opposed not only to its enactment, but sometimes even to discussing the Bill.
The tide, however, is rapidly turning against those who think that the law has no part to play in achieving social equality and full citizenship for disabled people. The question now is not whether Britain will go with the tide, but whether we shall be the last country in the developed world to do so.
I am reminded again today of the striking and very memorable photograph of two baby girls that was widely displayed by the Spastics Society with the movingly eloquent caption:
"One of them has cerebral palsy, the other will grow up with full human rights."
The Spastics Society knows, like all supporters of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, that without full civil rights disabled people are doubly disabled. The handicapping effects of their disabilities are made even harder to bear by unnecessary social handicaps for which there is no moral justification; and what anyone in this House opposed to this motion must answer today is the question: "Why on earth should what is morally unjustified any longer be legally permissible in Britain?"
12.57 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I add my voice in support of the motion before the House and congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on bringing forward the motion. I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose voice has often been heard arguing with persistence for those who need help.
Two things distinguish a democracy—the Parliament of that democracy as the sounding board and representative of the people, and the willingness of the Government to listen when there is a need in society. Everyone acknowledges that there is a need for the Bill. I have heard no one in the House argue against that, today or on Second Reading. We all know that there is a need. We all know also that a firm majority of Members of Parliament want the Bill to be enacted.
542
There will always be people who bring extraneous matters into debate and there will always be people who have doubts about the way in which legislation would be carried out. However, the need has been firmly established. We are not arguing that there has not been advance, but are we to tell people who are in need in that respect, "As some advance has been made in the past, we shall not go further and establish your full rights."?
Coming from Northern Ireland, I am surprised at the Government's attitude. In Northern Ireland, the Government were prepared to set up a commission and take action in law to try to get rid of discrimination in employment. There was a big debate in Northern Ireland about the way in which the Government set about doing that. Today, it has been established beyond all dispute that we need legislation and that a majority of Parliament wants the legislation to reach the statute book.
I want to stress what is happening in Northern Ireland—I am glad that the Bill states that it will apply to Northern Ireland. A former mayoress of the city of Belfast has a disabled child. She recently went to pay her rate bill and when she reached the door of the place where she had to pay she was told that she could not bring in her child in a wheelchair but would have to carry her child. When she entered the building, she was told that the rates office was up two flights of stairs on the second floor. She asked whether there was a lift and was told that there was not and that she would have to walk up the stairs. She replied, "But I know there is a lift", but was told that the lift was only for people who worked in the building. The woman had to carry her child up two flights of stairs in order to pay her rate bill.
Such procedures must be outlawed by legislation. People may feel that that is harsh, but we must be harsh. Today I have heard some arguments about the costs, but if we do not take action now, the costs will rise until they are almost prohibitive. The time for action is now.
I have wide experience of disabled people as I have carried out pastoral work for more than 48 years in the city of Belfast. Disabled people do not want the pity or the sympathy of the House; they do not even want protection. They just want their rights to be established. They have a right to certain facilities. Hon. Members in the House today must realise that, because those facilities are not available to disabled people, they are cut off from their families, family outings and the benefits that would accrue to them were they active family members and able to go to the places that the rest of their families visit.
The time has come for the Government to cease erecting barricades and barriers to the Bill and instead to give it a fair wind. As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, we have had many hours of debate on the Bill—it is not undigested legislation; much of the Government's legislation is far less digested than the Bill—and it would be expedient for the House to proceed with it.
The Bill contains the opportunity for the Minister to undertake consultations across the board before he begins regulating. The Government must lift the barriers, give the Bill a fair wind and let disabled people, of whom there are 6.5 million, enjoy their rights. That is what they are arguing for, and they deserve to have those rights. Their rights should be established now and the Government should say that they will back the Bill.
1.4 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: As the reaction of the Public Gallery just showed, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) expressed the views of the people of this country. We could spend hours and hours saying, "We must look at the problem" and asking, "Has this been thought of?", but how does that sound to disabled people who, as the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members have said, want to lead their own lives? That is what the House should seek to deal with.
I pay the warmest tribute to the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who has been in the House a long time and is held in the greatest respect by hon. Members, irrespective of party. He has always been committed and sincere and, to his credit, on an issue to which he is committed, he does not worry too much about the Whips. All people, especially disabled people, look to people like the hon. Member for Exeter for support.
Many other hon. Members, over many years, have been committed to the issue. One should never forget the continuing work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was committed to the issue at a time when the House and public were not as receptive as they are now to his views. I should also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) for introducing the Bill.
Many references have been made to the Second Reading debate and the enormous vote of support that the Bill received then. No hon. Member voted against it. We know, therefore, the feelings of hon. Members, irrespective of their party, when on 11 March they went through the Aye Lobby to support the Bill.
We have a right to feel annoyed and angry that we are now having to debate whether there will be sufficient time for proper discussion of the Bill. We can feel angry and annoyed, but what of the hundreds of thousands of people who are disabled and who saw the debate and vote on 11 March, after years of opportunity, discussion and hope, as a clear sign that, at long last, the Government would introduce the sort of legislation that they have been seeking for so many years?
In the run-up to that debate, all hon. Members received hundreds of letters or cards from their constituents. I cannot believe that any hon. Member, including the Prime Minister, did not have an enormous postbag of letters from constituents begging him to be here and to vote in support of the Bill.
Did any Member say, "I have had a letter from a constituent and I am somewhat sympathetic, but I don't really think now is the time to pursue this. There's the cost and the inconvenience to business"? I bet that not one hon. Member wrote back to his or her constituent to say, "I am sorry. I am sympathetic to a degree, but I will not be supporting that Bill."
When the Bill went into Committee after the Second Reading vote, it should have been clear to the Minister that Parliament had spoken. The Government should have said that, providing there was clear evidence of progress in Committee, whatever time was needed would be made available.
I listened to the Minister's comments about procedure. I know all about procedure as I was a Government Whip for five years. I learnt how legislation is introduced, and the same system still operates. While I was the Government Whip for London Members of Parliament, I attended many
544
meetings with the two Prime Ministers under whom I served, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. We discussed many Bills and, if the Chief Whip said that one in particular was essential and that Government time had to be made available for it, the Prime Minister of the day always said that Parliament could have that time. We therefore know that the necessary time can be made available if the Government so wish.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will pay attention to my next remark because it goes to the heart of the matter. The Minister referred to next Friday. He will be aware of the order of business for that day and of the fact that the Bill is second on the list. No one can predict how long the debate on the first Bill will last—it may last one or two hours. Let us consider the various things that could happen next Friday.
The Minister is in a position to tell us whether the Government intend to table amendments to the Bill before next Thursday. If they do, it will slow down, if not kill, any meaningful debate. I know that the Minister cannot comment on the next issue that I wish to raise but I see a Government Whip, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), in his place, and he knows how the system works. Statements can be made at 11 am on Fridays. As I said, we do not know what time the Bill will come up for debate next week but let suppose that the first Bill is debated for an hour and that consideration of this Bill finally begins at 11.30 am. Can we be given an assurance that there will be no Government statement next Friday?
Mr. Fabricant: Although I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, how can he expect an answer to that question? Whether there is a statement will depend on the events of the week.
Mr. Cox: I think that every hon. Member would accept that, if something of great importance were to happen, it is the Government's duty to make a statement at the earliest opportunity. However, the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that the Government could say that they intended to slip in a statement although it could wait until the following week, thus reducing the time available for debate on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows, as the House knows, that a statement generally takes half an hour; it can take much longer. Those are the problems at which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood needs to look in the coming week.
Let us consider the reaction of disabled groups to the events in the House on 11 March. I have here a copy of the Spastics Society's spring 1994 publication. It has a photograph of people in wheelchairs against the background of the House of Commons and the headline, "Civil Rights Victory". That is how those people saw the vote here on 11 March. They saw it as victory, at long last, in their long campaign. Some 231 hon. Members voted in favour of the Bill and no one voted against. Against that background, one has to ask about the Government's real intentions towards the Bill. Is their real intention to ensure that there is adequate time for discussion?
On 26 February 1993, I introduced a debate in the House on this very subject in which we sought to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled people. I said then that no hon. Member could say that, thankfully, disablement was not a problem in his or her constituency. We have heard today that, on average, there are, sadly, 10,000 people in every constituency who suffer various forms of

545
disability. What our constituents expect from us and most certainly from the Government is action—legislation—that will lead to the introduction and development of their civil rights.
We have heard today many examples of the injustices that, sadly, exist. During our debate on 26 February 1993, the Minister said:
"Education and persuasion remain important parts of the way forward".—[Official Report, 26 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1181.]
Whatever our thoughts on education and persuasion as the way forward—I do not dispute for a minute that they have a role to play—we all know that what is required and what people, especially disabled people and their families, expect is legislation to give them their rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe have outlined the events of the past 12 years during which hon. Members on both sides have sought to carry through similar legislation. We know, sadly, what has happened repeatedly. The Government, sometimes from malice and sometimes, I am prepared to say, from genuine concern about the possible effects, have delayed the progress of legislation such as we are discussing today.
References have been made today to the Prime Minister. I am sure that many hon. Members visit groups of people and meet individuals who are, sadly, disabled. Such people in my constituency in south London say, "You know, Tom, when we hear the Prime Minister talking about the citizens charter and about what it means, where do we fit in? Do those charters mean anything to us, given our sad disabilities and the restrictions on the way in which we lead our lives?"
It would be interesting to know whether the Prime Minister was thinking about disabled people when we had that blaze of publicity not so long ago about charters. We do not hear too much about them now, but I am told, and I understand, that they are still part of Government policy. We hear all the talk about the Whips and, as I have said, I was a Whip, but if charters are still part of Government policy, I suggest that the Prime Minister of the Government who control the affairs of the country, as the person who can decide the allocation of time for any debate in the House, should insist that sufficient time is given to the Bill.
Indeed, at the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made what I thought was a very generous comment. He asked the Minister whether, if the Labour Opposition were prepared to give up half of one of their Supply days, the Government would provide another half day so that there would be a whole day allocated for further discussion of the Bill. We did not get very much response from the Minister. It is possible—I hope that I may say it without being unfair—that he is not in a position to make such comments. However, I hope that he pursues that suggestion, because it was obviously made with the approval of the Opposition Chief Whip. One will listen with interest to what will happen.
Let me make one or two further comments in reference to the House of Commons research paper 94/37, which was published on 28 February and which outlined the proposals of the Bill. All of us know, because we make great use of the research papers that the Library provides, that that
546
paper outlines the principal objectives of the Bill on page 2. I shall not comment on them, but on page 11 the paper gives the names of 13 groups representing disabled people which were consulted and which put forward their ideas on the proposals contained in the Bill.
Those 13 groups cover a whole range of disabilities and, as we all know, have a great deal of contact with people throughout the United Kingdom. Every one of those groups was in total support of the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood introduced on March 11. To his credit, through today's debate, the hon. Member for Exeter is seeking to ensure that we have adequate time for full discussion of that Bill.
I agree that there must be full discussion of the Bill. Consultation is vital. I thought that we were given to understand that the Minister and his Department were actively involved in the Bill. If they are, I hope that we shall soon see the publication of the results of those consultations. It is not a political issue. I can be critical of the Government for what I see as a delay, but I genuinely believe that they have a commitment to legislation. So I shall not comment on the aspects of speeches that were made by two Conservative Members that I found questionable. I heard all the comments which expressed the sentiment of, "Yes, it is wonderful, but, but, but … " We have a right to expect the Government, and the Minister and his Department in particular, to be involved in consultation, to listen to what are no doubt the genuine fears of organisations and businesses, and then to explain to us how they have sought to reassure individuals and organisations that have had comments to make.
On about 20 April I received a letter from the Spastics Society of 19 April, headed:
"Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill".
The letter may have been sent to many other people. The final paragraph says it all in setting out what the House and the Government should be seeking to do. The paragraph reads:
"Having come so far we cannot let the Bill be smothered and die due to the technicalities of Parliamentary Procedure. If this were to happen the 6.5 million disabled people in this country will understandably feel let down and ignored by the democratic process."
I do not think that any hon. Member could better sum up the issue that is at stake. That paragraph sets out the test for the House today, but more so the test that we shall face next Friday. It is a test for the House but, above all, it is a test for the Government, and especially for the Prime Minister.
1.26 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for bringing forward such an excellent motion. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that the effects of the motion are not technically enforceable, but I am sure that he and other right hon. and hon. Members will accept the spirit of the motion. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who has been seeing the Bill through the House.
My natural inclination is to be a libertarian. That approach has been inculcated through my background in business over the past 10 or 12 years and through training at university in economics before that. Initially, I was rather opposed to the Bill as it was presented on Second Reading. That was not because I feel that there should be discrimination against the disabled. I said in an

547
intervention that I happened to have a political researcher who is disabled. That person is employed not because he is disabled but because he is a good researcher.
I am not a great believer in conversions on the road to Damascus, but to a large degree I am converted in this instance because of the changes that have been made in Committee. It is worth emphasising what the Bill is now certainly not. First, it is not a Bill that is advocating positive discrimination. It is simply a Bill that argues, as it were, that there should be equal opportunity. As I would always argue for libertarianism for industry, I would also argue for libertarianism for our entire population, the able-bodied as well as the disabled.
I believe that the Bill will create a climate and a spirit in which businesses, local authorities and the Government will have to act to introduce legislation in future that is in line with this Bill if it becomes an Act. I hope that it will become an Act given the amendments that were made in Committee.
Although the Committee stage was open in its dealings and there was much co-operation on both sides of the Committee, the Government did not table any amendments. I hope that extra time will be found for the Bill. If there are any other areas on Report, in respect of which the Government believe that the Bill is not as we would wish it to be to the benefit not only of the disabled but of the community as a whole, including business, I hope that the Government will table suitable amendments.
Let us examine more closely the amendments that were made in Committee and why I support the Bill now when I previously did not. The main alteration has occurred in clause 10 under exemptions. Clause 10(1) states that the Secretary of State of the day
"may by regulations provide for the exemption, for a specified period,"—
that is, a period which the Secretary of State specifies—
"of any person or body, or class of person or body, from any requirement of this Part of this Act specified in the regulations."
Clause 10(2) states:
"Regulations under this section may specify different periods of exemption in relation to—

(a) the provision of different goods, facilities or services;

(b) different persons or bodies; or

(c) different classes of persons or bodies."

That means that the Secretary of State can decide who may be exempt from the Bill and for what period they may be exempt.
Those are far-reaching powers. I am prepared to accept that any Secretary of State will be able to make the right judgment and to perform the balancing trick, which always has to be performed, between the requirements of one part of our community and those of another part of our community.
Let us not forget that if we were to force small businesses to introduce ramps, disabled toilets or whatever over a very short period—which would be reducing the Bill to absurdity and which is now not the case—that would not benefit the disabled. Those small businesses would simply go out of business and would not be able to serve the disabled or the able-bodied.
Mr. Hendry: In a small retail community in which shops provide similar services, if the shopkeepers who are most aware of the needs of disabled people carry out the kind of work at an early stage to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) referred and possibly at significant cost, how does my hon. Friend square those costs with the fact that less responsible retail
548
businesses, which decided to apply for an exemption on the grounds that they could not afford such work, would be in a better trading position than the shopkeepers who had carried out the letter of the law?
Mr. Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very valid point. However, under the Bill, individual trading bodies or shops would not have to apply for exemptions. Instead, the Secretary of State would specify classes of businesses that are exempt.
My hon. Friend raises another valid point: what about the business that goes to the expense of producing a ramp and other facilities for the disabled? I hope that such a business will get extra custom, and I hope that that extra custom will come from not only the disabled but the able-bodied, who will say that a specific shop or business is proving that it has a duty of care to the community which deserves reward. If that reward is custom, so be it. All things being equal, I know that I will always choose to buy goods in a shop that provides facilities for the disabled, rather than a shop that does not provide such facilities.
Another reason why I support the Bill is the sheer inevitability of this type of Bill becoming law. I shall be somewhat controversial and say that it is as inevitable as the age for homosexual consent reaching equality. I think that, through cowardice, we put off the inevitable a few months ago, and it will inevitably come back again. However, I do not wish to raise such controversial matters at this stage. This Bill is even more inevitable. For that reason, too, I support it.
Some hon. Members have asked why we should put off the inevitable, especially when it would be more expensive if we were not do it now but at a later date. It makes sense to do it now. All the arguments that I have heard from my hon. Friends and Opposition Members where doubts have been expressed have been covered in clause 10 which deals with exemptions. There are further points in the Bill which convince me that the Bill is worth pursuing and passing into law. As I said earlier, I invite the Minister to table amendments on Report if there are still areas that he is unhappy about.
I should like to clear up a few misconceptions about the Bill. As I said, it is not seeking positive discrimination—I am very much against that. It is simply asking for equal opportunities for the disabled, just as there are equal opportunities for the able bodied. I was amused and delighted by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) who, in a marvellous peroration, put forward the Conservative party philosophy with, dare I say it, such conviction that I almost felt the desire to invite him to join us on this side of the House. As he rightly said, it is Conservative party philosophy that we are one nation. He quoted Winston Churchill. I shall quote from another speech of Winston Churchill. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) like me to give way?
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I have just walked in. I must not miss the hon. Gentleman's speech—it is wonderful.
Mr. Fabricant: Winston Churchill said that the Conservative party wishes to provide the opportunities for people to soar as high as they can possibly go but also to provide from the wealth created through private enterprise a safety net below which no one should fall. That philosophy is not exclusive to the Conservative party; I am

549
sure that there are certain socialist modernisers who might also agree with that—if not all Opposition Members. I see some frowns opposite.
Basically, I see nothing in the Bill that is contrary to Conservative party philosophy. All my qualms and fears about the possible damage that it could do to businesses have been allayed by the fact that the Secretary of State of the day can make decisions with regard to what classes of business can be exempted and for how long.
Mr. Sheerman: I will probably take a long time to live down the hon. Gentleman's mention of my remarks. I was trying to make the point clear, because it was depressing to hear some of his colleagues still emphasising the benefit and dependency role of disability and disability legislation.
I want to hear the Minister and Conservative Members saying that the legislation liberates people to benefit both the private and public sectors. Whenever people are given the opportunity to use all their abilities, costs are reduced and wealth is created. That is the whole thrust of the Bill, and I think that there will be undisguised benefits in terms of costs. When the Minister looks into costs—as he is doing now—I hope that he will balance that against the physical modifications which too many people harp on about.
Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I mentioned that, before I was in business, I read economics at university. One does not need to study economics at university to know that it is always worth while to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. For every cost, there can also be certain benefits, and, as I made clear in an earlier intervention, there will have to be some benefits from a large proportion of the 6.25 million registered disabled people being able to leave social security and get into the jobs market.
They will contribute to the Exchequer and to the wealth of the nation and they will also, as has been pointed out, provide greater dignity for themselves by playing a more active role in the community. That is in no way to condemn those disabled people who would be unable to get a job because of the degree of their disability.
I shall also point out another misconception. We are not talking about extra money for the disabled for a job that they are unable to do. That is not what the Bill is about. It is not about putting people in jobs if they are not capable of doing them. As I understand it, if a disabled person is only able to work at two thirds of the productivity of an able-bodied person because of the degree of his disability, it is accepted in the Bill that that person would, if it was the employer's wish, get two thirds of the wages.
There is no question of positive discrimination. The Bill is very fair, both to employers and to the disabled. I talked about the inevitability of the Bill. It is inevitable not only because of its innate fairness and the rightness of having such a Bill, but because it has been done elsewhere. Not only has it been done elsewhere; it works elsewhere. It works in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France and Sweden.
It seems astonishing that anyone in the Chamber can say that a Bill of this nature is unworkable and would provide such great additional costs that the economy would collapse or be seriously damaged as a result. Where the
550
Government are still unhappy, let us make further alterations. But that would require adequate time in this place for Report.
I do not believe that there is one Member of Parliament out of the 651 hon. Members who has not received letters from constituents about the matter. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said that it is difficult to believe that there are 10,000 disabled people in his or any constituency. I would not be surprised if it were perhaps not 10,000 but 9,000, 11,000, or some similar figure. The amount of disability in Britain is fairly high. It has been pointed out that one of the reasons for the amount of disability is better health care. People can survive certain types of injury that they could not have survived earlier.
In the past, disabled groups believed that institutional discrimination was the main problem. Anti-discrimination is the form of legislation which is most likely to tackle it.
The Bill may contain several loopholes. It may not be perfect. It may be only a first step, but, unless it is passed, we shall not establish a precedent in United Kingdom legislation. Just as there should not be sexual discrimination, racial discrimination or—now I shall really incur the wrath of the Whips—age discrimination, there should not be discrimination against the disabled. If I had my way, there would be anti-agist legislation, too.
Similarly, there must be legislation to protect the disabled and give them not greater but equal opportunities. Who in the House could deny that?
1.46 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a brief intervention in this important debate. I join my colleagues on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on the way in which he moved the motion. As ever, he did it with the generosity of spirit, common sense and dignity which has won him friends and respect throughout the House.
I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) in saying how much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He made perhaps the most compelling case of anyone for giving the Bill more time. If his speeches are to consist predominantly of quotations from the speeches of my hon. Friends, the Prime Minister and former Prime Ministers and members of the Cabinet, they will be valuable speeches. It is notable that he could not find a single speech from the Leader of the Opposition or a previous Labour Prime Minister that he wanted to quote. If he wants us to have more time for further debate on the issues so that he can bring to the attention of the House the extremely powerful and noteworthy comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that is a powerful emotion indeed.
Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to all of my speech or been present for the Second Reading, he would know that on Second Reading I concentrated precisely on the tradition in the Labour party in favour of disability legislation. I tried to think intellectually and honestly of something different to say today and I lit on an examination of the philosophy of the governing party. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the two speeches, he will find that they contrast quite nicely.
Mr. Hendry: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I simply wanted to make the point that for those of us on the Conservative Benches it was a great pleasure to hear the articulate words of our colleagues coming from his mouth so clearly.
There is no doubt about the tremendous support and enthusiasm that the motion and the Bill enjoy among the public at large. That is clear from the meetings that I have had with people in my constituency who have disabilities, and from the letters that I have received. Therein, however, lies a dilemma for us. While the Bill is clearly a popular measure, introducing it is like offering a child a lollipop. Of course, the child says, "Yes, I want it." Then if one says to the child, "Now you have to pay for it", he may not want it after all. The costs associated with the Bill must be considered.
Hon. Members have referred to the fact that the Bill was debated extensively in Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept, however, that, often, the nature of debate in Committee is not a true reflection of the issue behind the relevant legislation. I am not referring directly to this Bill, but to the Standing Committee on the Tobacco Advertising Bill, on which I served. During that Committee, it became clear that most of the amendments were being tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. They were pushed to a vote, although he explained that he did not agree with them. Because of his actions, those of us who had deep reservations about the Bill were forced to curtail our speeches.
Although the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been discussed in Committee and amendments were not tabled on behalf of the Government, that should not be taken to mean that the Bill was discussed as fully as it should have been.
Repeated reference has been made to the fact that the campaign for the Bill has lasted for 12 years. Some of my colleagues have also drawn attention to some of the developments in that time. If we look objectively at the position of people with disabilities, it is clear that it has improved significantly over that time, although the rate of that improvement has not been as fast we would have wished.
I do not intend to rehearse the long list of developments and changes, but I should like to pick out a couple which give me the most satisfaction because I was involved in their development when I was an adviser at the Department of Social Security. The disability living allowance and the disability working allowance have made an important contribution towards enabling people with disabilities to lead more fulfilling lives. We can take great pride in that.
The way in which children with disabilities are taught has changed dramatically and represents an absolute breakthrough. I welcome whole-heartedly the fact that children with disabilities now go through the main education system wherever possible, rather than being hived off into special schools. There is a need for such schools for children with the most severe disabilities, but the fact that many other children with disabilities are integrated in the mainstream education system is a welcome development.
I also welcome the improvements in premises owned by the Government. On Wednesday, I opened a new jobcentre in Glossop in my constituency, which combines the former jobcentre with the unemployment benefit office. Anyone who knew the old building would agree that it was a most hostile environment not just for people claiming
552
unemployment benefit, but particularly for people with disabilities. The barriers and glass screens made access difficult for disabled people. Although there were three means of access to the building—one for women, one for men and one for employers—there was no means of access for people with disabilities. The building has changed beyond recognition and that means that people with disabilities who are seeking work will now be aided back into work, or into work for the first time, in a much more user-friendly environment.
I accept that a great deal more needs to be done. I am certain that discrimination is still too widespread. I am aware that too many employers who know in advance that an applicant has disabilities are less likely to interview that person and will opt for someone who is able bodied. Such practice cannot continue to be accepted by a civilised society.
Progress to end discrimination is still too slow. I was particularly shocked by the figures produced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has done so much for the Bill, which revealed how Government Departments have failed to meet the voluntary target to have work forces of whom 3 per cent. are people with disabilities. The fact that one Department has reached just 0.3 per cent., or one tenth, of that target, must be addressed.
Many of us are concerned that the proposed legislation would mean that significant costs were incurred in converting buildings to make them easily accessible to people with disabilities, though I accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire that such conversions would enable more people to shop in retail outlets and therefore boost business. To many of them, it would also bring in a different type of business—for example, mothers with pushchairs, who at the moment cannot take their children into those shops.
It must be accepted that many of the businesses in our constituencies which are experiencing difficulties in a market which is beginning to pick up but in which the recovery is slow would find it difficult to undertake those conversion costs now or in the foreseeable future.
Let me consider a couple of towns in my constituency and relate that directly to the experience that I see about me in High Peak. Buxton would never have been built if one had been thinking about the needs of people with disabilities, because there are not many towns with more slopes and hills. New Mills, not far away, is not dissimilar in many ways. Buxton was developed due to the healing spa waters there, which attracted many people with disabilities to go there.
In Buxton, perhaps some of the earliest facilities in the country for disabled people are being refurbished—the Slopes. The Slopes were a series of slopes of different gradients where people who were recovering from debilitating illnesses could start to walk up increasingly steep gradients day by day. There they were able gradually to be returned to full health. As a result of money being committed by High Peak borough council, by the Government and by the European Union, those are being restored and they are a tremendous asset in the town.
The geography of Buxton means that the cost of ensuring that all the retail outlets were accessible to people with disabilities would be enormous. We have a huge number of retail outlets, public buildings and houses to which access can be gained only by climbing a significant number of steps.

553
We have a jewel of an opera house, the Buxton opera house, built almost 100 years ago. It desperately wants to do more to make itself accessible to people with disabilities, but, at the moment, that is not easy. There are narrow stairways, access is up little narrow streets and it would be difficult, and would cost a tremendous amount of money, for those conversions to be carried out. The opera house has led the way in signing stage plays and operas. It is one of the first opera houses in the country to sign opera. That is an indication of its desire for the facilities to be improved, but a tremendous cost will be involved in making access available in the near future to people with disabilities.
Mr. Fabricant: I am familiar with the Buxton opera house, which is an excellent opera house, and I have been to several performances there, including a performance of "The Magic Flute" a while ago, which was excellently done.
Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the Bill has been amended—although I would not encourage opera houses or other places of entertainment to take that route—to enable the Secretary of State, should he so wish, to say that old buildings or buildings of a specific size or shape could be exempt for so many years from undertaking such work, especially if such work might jeopardise the existence of the opera house?
Mr. Hendry: That clause has significantly improved the Bill as it stands. We shall now enter a legal minefield about what constitutes a right to appeal against that. People may say that they cannot afford to do the work, when they may be able to do it. If two shops are next door to one other and one is granted an exemption but the other is not, although one may attract more business as a result, it has obviously had to put much money up front and, in the difficult economic trading climate, that may cause it further difficulties.
Last week, I met some people with disabilities in Chapel-en-le-Frith, a village in my constituency. There has been significant coverage in the local newspapers of the difficult trading circumstances in that village and in towns and villages nearby. We have a number of empty shops there and I am cautious about imposing further costs on those businesses—indeed, pressure of any type on those businesses—in addition to the costs that they must incur to survive the recession. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has just said. It must be accepted that inherent in the Bill are additional costs on companies and businesses. We must consider those factors.
A disabled constituent could not come to my surgery and felt that discrimination was being practised. Access to the Conservative association office is up a flight of stairs, so people with disabilities find it difficult to enter it. I offered to give my constituent a home visit so that, instead of a surgery slot of a quarter of an hour, I gave a one-and-a-half hour visit, which I thought had served my constituent's interests better than a visit to a surgery. What people with disabilities sometimes regard as discrimination can be used to ensure that their problems are listened to and answered.
Castleton caverns in my constituency are a series of internationally renowned underground caverns—I suppose that caverns are, by definition, underground. The nature of
554
the caverns means that they are difficult to enter. If the caverns have to comply with the regulations, it will have to be on the understanding that, geographically, by their very nature, they may not be able to be used by people who require wheelchairs.
We must consider the transport provisions of the Bill. We all know that trains with slam doors cannot be converted for wheelchair use. There is a programme to improve them and replace them with more modern rolling stock, but that will take time. The Bill must contain an acceptance that changes will take a long time. I fully accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that no physical date has been put on the changes.
The biggest danger is that we may raise a banner of hope for people with disabilities when we say that the issues will be tackled and the law now says so, then in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, disabled people find that the changes have not taken place because the legislation contained no time scale. Their sense of frustration and betrayal will become all the greater. Therefore, when we take action now, we must ensure that the provisions that we deliver are enforceable.
When we talk about the provision of taxis or the conversion of taxis for use by people with disabilities, we must be aware of the tremendous costs entailed. The taxis that are most readily usable by people with disabilities are black cabs, which cost £20,000-plus. There is one black cab in the borough of High Peak, and it is used by people with wheelchairs. If we require every taxi in High Peak to be converted to a black cab over a certain period, we shall put most of the cab drivers in Buxton and the rest of the borough out of business because they simply cannot justify or afford that investment.
Attitudes to disabled people in employment are changing. With each generation of new managers and people who have grown up with people with disabilities around them, we have become much more open minded and far less discriminatory in our attitudes towards people with disabilities. That means that opportunities for people with disabilities will improve.
There are tremendous examples in High Peak of companies that employ well above their quota level of disabled people. Otter Controls, a firm in Buxton which makes electronic equipment and electrical components, employs well above the level set in the voluntary code. If we simply say that 3 per cent. of a company's work force must be disabled people, companies that employ above that level will say that they have fulfilled their legal obligation and cannot justify to their shareholders taking on more people with disabilities. The best employers would scale back because the law simply required them to meet a floor level.
The voluntary agreement has not worked as well as it should have—in the public sector it has not worked nearly as well as it should have done. The Government could make a much clearer commitment to ensuring that those targets will be met within government. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe gave a high figure of, I think, 100,000 jobs for disabled people that were being created by Government Departments. That is an important way forward and legislation is not necessarily required to achieve that goal.
It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has said that employers are far less unhappy with the Bill's provisions than they would initially have been. That clearly opens up an opportunity for them to say,

555
"Let's see how we can actively work together to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities." That would encourage individual employers to meet the targets that they have said that they are willing to meet.
Much more can be done under the voluntary code. If disability groups in our constituencies said to shops, "To make your shop accessible to somebody in a wheelchair, this is what you will need to do and this is a rough idea of what it will cost", I am sure that many shopkeepers would say, "That is not as much as I thought it would cost; I will do it." Shopkeepers probably never considered doing so before because nobody helped them to take that next step.
The needs of disabled people will be increasingly borne in mind by the House and the country. We must strengthen current legislation and the Bill undoubtedly does that. The legal complications, the grey areas and the aspects open for debate in court and elsewhere still give grounds for concern, but this debate and the one next week and the future progress of the Bill give us a chance to express our genuine concerns to ensure that people with disabilities play a full part in the life and work of this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Ministers should provide sufficient time on the floor of the House before 27 May 1994 to allow all remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to be completed, and that sufficient time be provided before the end of the Session for the consideration of any Amendments to the Bill which may be made by the House of Lords.

Former Members
2.6 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I beg to move,
That this House wishes to place on record its appreciation for the lives of Mr. Jimmy Boyce, the honourable Member for Rotherham who died on 25th January 1994, Jo Richardson, the honourable Member for Barking who died on 1st February 1994, Mr. Ron Leighton, the honourable Member for Newham North East who died on 28th February 1994 and Mr. Bob Cryer, the honourable Member for Bradford South who died on 12th April 1994, all of whom were dedicated to the cause of socialism and world peace, an understanding which defined their continuity of purpose and assisted in their approach to their Parliamentary work, where they had a total of 52 accumulated years of experience, as well as many years of experience gained outside this place in the trade unions and local government which shaped their consciousness and sharpened their sense of determination so that they each in their unique way articulated through the Parliamentary procedure a radical tradition in opposing the evils of unemployment, poverty, deprivation, discrimination and inequality which they considered could only be overcome by a democratic socialist programme of reform to create a society based on freedom, justice, fairness and equality and that in this way their efforts continued to nurture the liberty tree in the way of the Levellers, Tom Paine, the Chartists and the early pioneers of the Labour Party before them.
It is with great humility, as a relatively new Member of the House, that I move the motion. I am aware of the enormous contribution to the cause of socialism and to the work of this place that the four hon. Members mentioned in the motion, individually and collectively, made.
Other hon. Members who knew some of the four former Members much more intimately than I did wish to speak in support of the motion. I am aware that some hon. Members who knew the four former Members well and who appreciated sharing their lives are not able to be here today.
I wish to make two small points at the outset. First, I noted Madam Speaker's ruling yesterday that there was sufficient provision on the Order Paper for tributes to former hon. Members, and obviously this tribute is being paid through a motion on the Order Paper. Secondly, I am not a great believer in the personality cult, but I think it right that motions can be put on the Order Paper by colleagues who wish to pay tribute to former colleagues whose lives they shared.
The four hon. Members mentioned in the motion made their contribution in a radical tradition. That, I believe, is how history will record them. I shall say more about the radical tradition, but first I wish to say a little about each of the Members.
Jimmy Boyce was the hon. Member for Rotherham. He died on 25 January 1994 and was part of the new intake of members following the 1992 general election. He was a Scot who moved down to Yorkshire in search of employment. He quickly settled around Sheffield and became an active member of his local community. Jimmy was a rather thoughtful man. He became an active trade unionist, which was how I first came to know him in the 1970s. Later, he went on to Northern college, where I came to know him better. After completing his course there, he went to Sheffield university. It was in his capacity as a local councillor in Sheffield that he became respected as a hard worker. He cared about people and about his community.
Having been made redundant from the steel works, he remained unemployed until he was elected to Parliament.

557
That experience of unemployment deepened his understanding of the powerlessness that people can feel in that situation. He came to the House with a sense of purpose and was determined to empower people. He was also a jovial man who liked company, and company liked him.
Jo Richardson, the former hon. Member for Barking who died on 1 February 1994, was a phenomenon. Her career spanned 50 years of Labour party history. Born a Geordie, she was elected in 1974 to represent Barking although she had been active in London politics for a great many years before that. Indeed, she was secretary of the Tribune group for 30 years from 1948 to 1978. She was a passionate fighter for women's rights and became chairperson of the organisation called Women's Rights, which she made an effective champion of the cause of women in society. There is no doubt that, had Labour won the previous election and if her health had held out, Jo Richardson would have become Britain's first Minister for Women's Affairs. In addition to being a feminist, she was an ardent unilateralist.
Ron Leighton, the former hon. Member for Newham, North-East, was a printer by trade and an active trade unionist. I first met him when he was spearheading the campaign against Britain's entry into the Common Market in the 1970s. It was a political position that he was to maintain for the rest of his life. He was opposed to the Common Market and to Britain's involvement in it.
During the bitter struggle in the printing industry, he kept in close touch with his union and with the men on the picket lines. As well as being interested in employment issues and Europe, he was a fervent supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Bob Cryer, the former hon. Member for Bradford, South who died on 12 April 1994, was known as an extremely hard working politician. He was a master of parliamentary procedure and was perhaps one of the House's most effective critics of Government policy. I first met him after he had been elected to represent Keighley in 1974. Over the years, I had the honour of being on a number of platforms with him. In 1958, Bob joined CND and became an official of that organisation. He was a vociferous opponent of nuclear weapons until his untimely death.
Collectively, the four former hon. Members had accumulated a total of 52 years of understanding of the procedures of the House. In addition, they were involved for many years in the wider trade union and Labour movement outside the House. Their accumulated knowledge was used in a meaningful way to help the causes that they championed.
They were aware of the pervading effects of the evils of unemployment, poverty, deprivation and inequality and what they did to the human spirit. Their understanding was born of their working class experience which fired their radicalism. That radicalism became the embodiment of their fight for democratic socialism as a means to move people out of poverty and to pave the way to economic and social freedom.
That was the radical tradition that the four hon. Members followed. Through the procedures of the House, they articulated that tradition. They understood how mastery of the procedures in this place could be used to
558
further their cause and the causes that they represented. They saw that as a way in which to empower the struggle for freedom, for justice, for fairness and for equality. As the motion says:
"their efforts continued to nurture the liberty tree"
that had been firmly planted in the late 18th century and 19th century.
I have no doubt that had the four hon. Members lived to see it, they would have been extremely proud of the fact that South Africa was this week taking the first cautious steps towards democracy and freedom. They would have been among the first to wish Nelson Mandela good luck in implementing measures to transform his society for freedom, justice and equality.
2.15 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), having drawn second place in the ballot for motions, has taken the opportunity to table this motion. In all the 24 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have not seen that done before. In view of what Madam Speaker said yesterday, it would be a good idea if other hon. Members did the same. We all know that if one has second place in the motions on the Order Paper on a Friday or a Monday, the chance of speaking at any length is small. In most circumstances, the hon. Member who has tabled the first motion would allow the tributes motion to be moved. It is clear that the Speaker did not want to change the system, which has lasted for a long time. However, I believe that it would be a good idea for the Speaker to make an announcement straight after Question Time, similar to that made when a new Member of Parliament is introduced, enabling a statement to be made about the death of a Member when the House is relatively full. That would be a good idea, even if there was not a tribute.
Because I asked for tributes to be allowed, I was attacked by The Guardian. In January 1977, I was on the Government Benches when it was announced that there would a tribute to Lord Avon who had been a Member of the House until 1957. Although 20 years had elapsed, it was decided that, because he was an ex-Prime Minister, we should have the day off. I did not oppose the tributes. What I opposed was the fact that Parliament would finish for the day. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and other hon. Members here today would not accept an elitist method whereby the deaths of ex-Prime Ministers resulted in a day off when there were many items of business with which to deal. Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned that we have a chance to speak for a few minutes about our colleagues.
It is important that we point out that the four people referred to in the tribute all came from the section of the party that is called working class. Jimmy Boyce came from the engineering industry. He never had a real chance to do the job that he was sent to do, but he showed a great deal of promise and he would have been a tremendous asset to the Labour party and to the socialist cause if he had been able to have his operation successfully. He was a man of real substance and hon. Friends who knew him better than I did would concur with that view.
Ron Leighton came from the printers' union and he never changed his mind about anything. As everyone knows, that is not easy because there are many pressures in the House. I remember Ron being against the Common

559
Market before he came to the House, and by the time he left he was still in the same place. During the many debates on Maastricht, we could always rely on Ron. Despite his illness, he turned up to vote against Maastricht. He, too, was a tremendous asset to the Labour party arid to Parliament in general.
I met Jo Richardson before she was a Member of Parliament when she was secretary of the left-wing group in the House of Commons, with some of my hon. Friends. Her role in Parliament was not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a secretary and a researcher and so on for many years before that. Her role on the left wing of the Labour party was tremendous. Her role on behalf of women was even more stupendous. Nobody can deny that she poured everything into trying to achieve equality for women and she did it despite the fact that, for the last 15 years of her parliamentary life, she was crippled with osteo-arthritis of a tremendously disabling kind. Nevertheless, despite those disabilities, she carried on and travelled round the country speaking all over Britain. She was a tower of strength to all of us who wanted to help in that struggle for equality.
I shall never forget the day when she was in the Tea Room and said, "Dennis, what shall we do? Enoch Powell is going to keep us here all weekend and stop embryo research. What can we do?" I said, "Leave it to me." I did not have a clue what I was going to do, but I found a system, which has since been disallowed. Enoch Powell was sat ready to pounce on Friday morning to keep us here all weekend and I moved the writ for Brecon and Radnor and Jo's face beamed. Of course, there were other plans afoot that day. My association with Jo was extremely strong and she will be missed by all of us on the Labour Benches and no doubt by many Conservative Members as well.
As for Bob, it is hard for me to do it; but a tremendous tribute was paid to him in Bradford on Saturday when more than 2,000 people turned up and lined the streets of the city. He was a great socialist, a great parliamentarian, a great politician. He knew all about railways—not only collecting numbers, but where the stations were—he knew all about old cars, he knew all about the Common Market from the inside and the outside. He, too, opposed it vigorously on all the occasions on which he had the chance. He was a great local campaigner in Bradford and in that area generally.
I shall miss him for the rest of my life because I always knew that, whenever we got the chance to challenge the Government at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, Bob would be there to be a Teller and he would know that I would be there. As a matter of fact, I met him at a Labour party conference way back in the early 1960s. What was he doing? He was moving a point of order. It was like the money resolution of the Labour party. That is how I first met him. Here was this bloke who had a slightly better way of speaking than me. His diction was perfect, as many who heard him late at night knew. He never changed. He moved a point of order at that conference and I thought, "He probably will not do it right. He has not been here before." But he was perfect and, from that day on, the association grew. I know that everybody in the House will miss his tremendous contribution.
A large number of people from all parties who sent letters to his wife Ann and to the family wrote great tributes to the work that he did in Parliament. Of course he was an
560
extra-parliamentarian as well. He did not believe that the House was where it all began—he knew that arguments and conflicts also occurred outside.
I cannot repeat all the things that were said about Bob. Other hon. Members will want to speak and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) wants to make his contribution. I only wish to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that he has done the House proud by giving us a chance to pay those tributes. I hope that other motions will follow so that such tributes may be made in future. We have lost four good people on the Labour side of the House. We would have loved those people to be here to carry on the struggle and to be here not only for South African democracy day but for the Canadian whitewash, which will come the next time that there is an election.
2.23 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this short debate. I hope that it will persuade Madam Speaker and the Procedure Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, to change our procedures so that in future when there is the tragic death of a Member there is an opportunity for those hon. Members who wish to pay a tribute so to do in a reasonable and appropriate way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, the four ex-Members to whom we are paying tribute were four different personalities. What joined them was that they came from the working class, and during their time in this place they never forgot where they came from or who they represented.
I knew Jimmy Boyce for only a short time. He was denied any reasonable parliamentary life by his tragic death. His friends have paid tributes to his constituency work and his parliamentary work. I shall refer only to his support for the self-determination of the people of Kashmir. His efforts in that regard were widely appreciated.
Jo Richardson dominated this place for 20 years. Throughout most of that time she was stuffed full of painkillers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, she performed extraordinary duties here while having demanding speaking engagements throughout the country, all the while suffering great discomfort and, indeed, pain. The moving memorial meeting that took place at Central hall on Wednesday night allowed people throughout political and non-political life to pay their tribute to Jo. My abiding memory will be of Madam Speaker referring to Jo as her comrade and friend.
Ron Leighton was a printer. He had his heart and soul in the printing industry, and when he came to this place he brought all his values and priorities with him. I thank him for the work that he did for me in securing my first election to this place in 1974, and for all that he did for trade unionists and others in shaping or moulding legislation, especially employment legislation.
Lastly, but by no means least, I shall say a few words about Bob Cryer. I came to this place in 1974 with Bob, he for Keighley and I for what is now Calder Valley. Sadly, he was to be defeated in 1983. He was returned as the Member for Bradford, South in 1987. Throughout his time here Bob regarded himself as a full-time Member. He was

561
almost the definition of a full-time, Monday-to-Friday parliamentarian. Yet he did not neglect his constituency. Virtually every weekend he organised an advice centre. There were opportunities for people to bring to him their problems, however small or great. He translated those problems into parliamentary and national issues.
It is extraordinary to remember that, since 1987, he had asked more than 1,600 questions, sponsored nearly 250 motions and supported 1,127 motions. That was the nature of Bob Cryer. He was a superb parliamentarian, a conscientious constituency Member and a friend whom many of us will sadly miss for many years to come.
This place has lost four extraordinary men and women in recent weeks and months. They will all be sadly missed by this place for many years to come.
2.28 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: In one sentence, as a Conservative Back-Bench Member, I associate Conservative Members with the tributes paid to the four hon. Members.
2.28 pm
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for giving us the opportunity to pay tribute to our ex-colleagues. As only two minutes are available to me, I shall not be able to use my notes.
We have lost four good colleagues and four good friends. I shall say a few words about Jimmy Boyce, who was a colleague and an extremely good and close friend. Given the circumstances in which we work, it is not very often that we make a real, proper and lasting friendship of the sort that Jimmy and I enjoyed. We have colleagues and people whom we know, but to have what Jimmy called a real pal is something that few of us enjoy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had a similar relationship with Bob Cryer.
Jimmy Boyce and I spent quite a lot of time together and it is a crying shame that he never had a real opportunity to sparkle in this place. Given the time, he would certainly have created opportunities for himself. The man's socialism and commitment were born out of his upbringing in Paisley, Scotland. He was a determined socialist. As a politician, he was absolutely unrelenting in pushing his cause forward. As a man, he was warm, friendly and witty.
Most of the people who met Jimmy Boyce liked him. Those of us who knew him, loved him. He once said to me, "We're only here once, make sure you give the ball a good kick." My God, Jimmy Boyce gave that ball a good kick.
Mr. Charles Hendry rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am afraid that the debate has concluded. Mr. Bob Cryer, the late hon. Member for Bradford, South, would have understood the rule perfectly.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY LEASEHOLDERS
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    REFERENDUM (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Not moved.

    SALE OF GOODS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    STATE HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on which the following business is set down for consideration, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

    (1) put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Education, Mr. Secretary Rifkind relating to Defence, Mr. Secretary MacGregor relating to Merchant Shipping and Mr. Secretary Howard relating to Immigration not later than Seven o'clock;

    (2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to aid to the Italian steel industry not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and

    (3) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to equal pay and equal treatment (burden of proof) not later than one and a half hours after their commencement.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

    EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
    Ordered,
    That European Community Documents Nos. 10166/93 and 11317/93, relating to aid for restructuring the Italian steel industry, and 6703/88, relating to equal pay and equal treatment (burden of proof), shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

    STANDING COMMITTEE B
    Ordered,
    That, during the proceedings on the Trade Marks Bill [Lords], Standing Committee B have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

    Heathrow Airport
    Motion mode, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    2.31 pm
    Mr. Terry Dicks: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise yet again an issue that is at the forefront of the minds of my constituents—the future of Heathrow airport and how that future will affect their lives.
    The House will recall, although it bears repeating, that Heathrow airport is the busiest international airport in the world as it handles about 40 million international passengers. If we include domestic passengers, the figure rises to almost 45 million. Around 90 airlines operate at Heathrow representing 85 countries serving more than 220 destinations.
    That traffic is reflected in the fact that there are more than 400,000 aircraft movements a year at Heathrow or, to put it another way, about 1,000 movements a day. That activity is handled by 50,000 staff who work at the airport and a further 20,000 people whose jobs are directly related to the airport's activities.
    Those statistics indicate quite clearly not only the international status of Heathrow, but the part that it plays in the local economy in terms of jobs and in the national economy in terms of international income earned by the airport. Heathrow has a vital role to play and it is important not to forget that it also operates within a wider local community whose views deserve to be heard and, whenever possible, acted upon, and to whom the aviation industry must pay due deference. It is within that context that Heathrow and its potential for future development must be considered.
    I have been involved in the activities of the airport, first as a local councillor on Hillingdon council between 1974 and 1986, which included the public inquiry on the fourth terminal, and from 1983 until now as the Member of Parliament for the constituency that includes the airport. I believe that I am therefore competent to talk about the issues as they affect the locality and, more important, as they affect my constituents and the environment in which they have to live.
    Some months ago, the Government set up a working party to examine the need for runway capacity in the south-east of England—RUCATSE—well into the next century. That working party sat for many months and, although it had only four options to consider, its conclusions, which were published last August, were that all the options should remain open. That unhelpful conclusion, by a group of people who should have known better, was put out to consultation by the Government. The period of consultation ends at the end of May this year —I suspect that it is one of the longest consultation periods that we have had for a long time.
    One of the options, that of building a third runway at Heathrow, was so ridiculous it would have meant the complete annihilation of three villages in my constituency—Sipson, Harmondsworth and Harlington—to say nothing of knocking down more than 3,000 homes which even a child of five could see was not a viable option either economically or socially. Nevertheless, the working party of so-called experts decided to leave it in their report as one of the options.
    About the same time as RUCATSE was coming to its ineffective and inappropriate conclusions, the British
    564
    Airports Authority was in the process of making a planning application to build terminal 5. That site would be on the old Perry Oaks sludge works site to the west of my constituency. The application was based on BAA figures which indicated a need for more terminal capacity at about the turn of the century. However, it must be made absolutely clear that, from the outset, BAA has insisted that the building of a fifth terminal in no way indicated the need for a third runway. It believes that the present runway capacity at Heathrow is sufficient to cope with additional passengers using the extra terminal. Latterly, British Airways has also come to that conclusion.
    Incidentally, at this juncture let me make it plain that British Airways has now purchased a site, again to the west of my constituency, to build a new head office. In doing so, it has returned a great deal of what can only be described as scrubland to the community in order to utilise a small portion of what was green belt for office use. British Airways has made it clear—I re-emphasise the point—that it is in the business of flying aeroplanes, not building terminals or runways, and that Prospect Park, which is the name given to its new site, will be used only for office facilities and has not been bought with the intention of selling the land to allow BAA to build another terminal there some time in the future. Only scaremongers who are seeking to make political capital out of the situation are peddling such malicious and unjustified rumours.
    Talking of unjustified and malicious rumours, I remind the House and my constituents that during the 1992 general election campaign the local Labour party, in a leaflet, told the electorate that if the Tories won the election, within six weeks of that victory a Cabinet decision would be taken to build a third runway at Heathrow. It is now some two years since our election victory and no such decision has been made; nor is it likely to be made.
    Once again, the objective of the malicious rumours and lies was to frighten people into voting Labour at the last election. They lied then about the future of Heathrow, and they are lying now when they tell people about the so-called proposals to build a third runway at the airport.
    The current campaign, which is supported by the Labour-controlled Hillingdon council and paid for by local council taxpayers, is bringing a blight to many homes in my constituency. There are no proposals to build a third runway at Heathrow, and any solicitor acting on behalf of a potential purchaser of a home in any of the three villages would not in any normal search procedure find any reference to proposals to build such a runway.
    However, due to the campaign augmented and orchestrated by the local Labour party, the attention of potential purchasers and their legal advisers has been drawn to the non-existent proposals to such an extent that word of mouth has been sufficient to discourage people from buying homes in these areas. The blight—that is what it is—must be laid at the door of the local Labour party and those who go along with its programme of rumour, innuendo and lies. No blame can be attached to either the RUCATSE report or the Government, neither of whom has proposed or recommended the building of a third runway at the airport.
    The local Labour party in general, and one or two individuals in particular—especially my Labour opponent at the last election, who seems to believe that if he tells enough lies often enough somebody somewhere will

    565
    believe him—deserve no credit for their behaviour. I know that my constituents will not forgive them for the worry and heartache that their lies have caused them.
    Let me once again spell out to the House where I stand on the issue of the future of Heathrow airport. First, I am proud of Heathrow airport and its international status. I am also proud of those who work at the airport and provide an excellent service to the many millions of travellers who pass through their hands throughout the year. I must also give credit to the BAA which has been prepared, especially in recent years, to listen to representations made to it and, where possible, to take the appropriate action. Sir John Egan, the chairman of the BAA, and Mike Roberts, who is responsible for the airport itself, must take a great deal of credit for that change of approach. I especially commend Mike Roberts for the way in which he kept the airport running during the time of the IRA mortar attacks. He did a superb job at that time, and credit for that should be put on the record.
    Heathrow airport is there and is going to remain there for some considerable time, although there are occasions when I wish that I could lift it up and drop it in Hackney. That does not mean, however, that local residents have to take second place to the wishes and, sometimes, the demands of the aviation industry. I hope that my views will be seen as reflecting the wishes and needs of the community, while trying to understand the value of Heathrow airport to the economy of this country.
    The public inquiry into the application by the BAA to build a fifth terminal will soon be under way and, while I can understand its justification to the aviation industry, I believe that concessions must be made by that industry to local residents before I, as their local Member of Parliament, can come out in favour of a fifth terminal.
    First, we need a clear statement by the Government that, once the consultation period is over and after some time has been set aside to consider the views put forward during that consultation period, there will be no third runway at Heathrow. Nobody wants it or needs it and, in any case, the social costs would be catastrophic. When a working party of so-called experts have left such an option in their report, it says little about their expertise, but an awful lot about their lack of common sense.
    Secondly, there must be a ban on night flights in and out of Heathrow. I can see no reason whatever to allow any flight to take place between 11.30 pm and 5 am. If we switched to summer time, or to double summer time, 5 am would become in reality 6 am or 7 am, which would be even better for those people who live under the flight path.
    Airlines will have to make some adjustments to their take-off times for planes coming from the far east, but that would be a small price to pay. The airlines' argument about quieter aeroplanes carries little weight with me, because all aeroplanes are noisy at low levels, and it is flying at those relatively low levels which causes the sleep of local residents to be interrupted.
    Perhaps my hon. Friend can explain why the only opposition to my proposals regarding the adjustment of night flights comes from his officials. Perhaps he can give some details about why he is opposed to it. Incidentally, I should like to know the number of movements per night hour. That would be purely for information, but it would be indicative of the pressure points throughout the night.
    566
    Thirdly, I still believe that a limit on aircraft movements at the airport is viable. If Heathrow has international status, that means that some domestic flights have to take second place to international ones. While some passengers on domestic flights fly to Heathrow to connect with international flights, I believe that the numbers of such passengers has been overstated. There is certainly a case for doing away with some domestic flights, while the major ones—Heathrow to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Manchester and perhaps Newcastle—should remain.
    Such a reduction in movements will do one of two things. It could enable some international airlines to arrive at Heathrow, with the contribution that that would make to the British economy, or it could reduce substantially the number of all movements in and out of the airport. Whatever the choice, the Government and the BAA must examine it closely during the next few months.
    I will go further today. I believe that there should be a cap placed on movements at Heathrow at 350,000 a year. I think that that is viable and workable, and I think that I could persuade most of my constituents to accept that figure. It would mean some adjustments being made at the airport to achieve those figures.
    Access by road to Heathrow has always been a problem and, at present, it can be chaotic at peak periods. Improvements are needed urgently, and widening the M25 to some 14 lanes—as was once suggested—is not the answer, because the traffic must come off those lanes and converge on a two or three-lane spur into Heathrow. Tailbacks—far from getting better—would be almost certain to get worse.
    The environmental impact, to say nothing of the pollution for local residents, cannot be justified and nor can the cost to taxpayer. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is now having second thoughts about this proposal. If we cannot find environmentally acceptable ways of improving surface access to Heathrow at present, how on earth can we consider building a fifth terminal with all of the additional pressures which that would bring?
    I hope and expect that my hon. Friend's Department will announce before the House rises for the summer—and not towards the end of the year, as has been indicated elsewhere—that there will be no third runway at Heathrow and that that option from RUCATSE will be buried for ever, along with the scaremongering statements made by the local Labour party. My constituents living in the three villages of Sipson, Harmondsworth and Harlington must have this unjustified and unnecessary fear taken out of their lives, bearing in mind the pressures that they already have to accept living adjacent to the world's busiest international airport.
    The Minister, when speaking to my local paper, condemned what he called the NIMBY approach which he appeared to attribute to some of my constituents. He should realise that it is not just the backyard that is under threat from a third runway, but the whole damn house. That is what worries my constituents.
    In case I have not made my opposition clear, let me spell it out to my hon. Friend. No other runway required, I say. If one puts the first letters of those words together, they make the name Norris. Norris for short, but I hope not for long. The Government will ignore the warning that I give at their peril. To do so would be to commit political hara kin in west London and the surrounding areas.

    567
    My constituents are worried and will continue to be worried until the Government make a clear statement. They must do so within a short time limit.
    2.44 pm
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on securing the debate. I know that it is an important subject for him and for all the people in his constituency. It is also important for the economy of London and the whole country. I am glad to have the opportunity to describe the Government's position. Before I begin, I shall join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mike Roberts of Heathrow. I agree with my hon. Friend that he did an excellent job during the recent security incident.
    Heathrow is a major source of employment: 50,000 people work there either directly or indirectly. It is a great motor for the creation of employment in the surrounding area. At the same time, it is undeniable that large airports can be uncomfortable neighbours. It is right that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have constituencies in the area should bring those concerns and fears to the House, to Ministers and to the British Airports Authority. It is in all our interests that those concerns should be followed through.
    I shall go through the subjects that my hon. Friend raised one by one. We had the opportunity to discuss night flights at some length last May in an Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend asked some detailed questions about movement numbers. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not answer them at this second, but instead say that I shall look at the record and write to him with detailed answers on the points that he has raised.
    We recognise straightforwardly that noise at night can be disturbing. That is why since 1962 there has been a restriction on aircraft operations at night. However, there has never been a total ban on night operations at Heathrow. That was given serious consideration in 1976–77, but after consultation a decision was made to allow night operations to continue while seeking to ensure that eventually all such operations would be carried out by quiet types of aircraft. That policy was confirmed in the 1985 White Paper on airports policy and again before the introduction of the restrictions that applied from 1 April 1988 to 24 October 1993.
    The current restrictions reflect the wide consultations undertaken last year. They are intended to maintain the balance between the needs of the airlines to operate at night and the wishes of local people to sleep without undue disturbance. I hope that the arrangements for monitoring the night restrictions introduced last October, including the audit trail announced on 1 February this year, will reassure local people that monitoring is working satisfactorily.
    Various other noise abatement measures such as noise preferential routes and use of quiet take-off and landing procedures are used and Heathrow Airport Ltd. has introduced a noise and track-keeping system, which is used for monitoring the performance of airlines. Infringements of the noise limits at night and at certain times during the day are penalised by fines.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the fifth terminal. General passenger forecasts suggest strong and continuing growth of demand for air travel. It is clearly appropriate for the airport operators to take into account those forecasts. In the
    568
    past few years, the proportion of United Kingdom passengers travelling from London has decreased as a proportion of total United Kingdom passengers. That reflects the ability of regional airports to attract viable direct services. It is a good thing. It enables regional travellers to achieve shorter journey times and frees up capacity in the London area, as my hon. Friend suggested.
    Clearly, an assessment will need to be made of future demand at Heathrow, but there is no sign—that should be underlined to my hon. Friend—that demand for the London airport system will not continue to grow for some time to come. That demand will need to be met.
    Following consultation with the local authorities, BAA submitted a planning application for the fifth terminal in the spring of last year. The application has been called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which is the right way to proceed. The proposal will now go to a public inquiry, where all the issues of national and local significance can be assessed and discussed. The inspector will form a view, taking account of all the evidence that has been presented, and he will then duly report. It will be for the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, jointly, to make a decision on the application, based on the inspector's report.
    I know that some people have said that the inquiry process is extremely lengthy. We have recently tightened procedures, but it is only right that all those with views should have a chance to comment on the details openly and transparently, not least my hon. Friend and his constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, because of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial position in relation to the final decision, it would not be right for me to comment on the application, except to say that, of course, we retain an open mind. There can be no question of the outcome of the inquiry having been prejudged by either of my right hon. Friends.
    I should like to clarify one point that my hon. Friend raised about surface access. There has been some confusion over the motorway proposals for access and it has been said that they somehow suggest that the Government have made up their mind about the planning inquiry. As I have already said, that is not the case. As a result of BAA's application for a fifth terminal, the Highways Agency is obviously promoting motorway schemes to provide adequate access. Those involve the provision of a dual carriageway spur road of motorway standard from terminal 5 to the proposed M25 link roads north of junction 14 at Poyle and improvements to the M4 between junctions 3 and 4B.
    The spur and M4 improvements will be necessary only if terminal 5 receives planning consent. As those schemes are contingent on the development of terminal 5, BAA would, if those schemes go ahead, make a substantial contribution to the costs of preparation and construction. That is standard practice where a road scheme is being promoted to provide access to a development and where such a scheme would not otherwise be provided at that time.
    The public inquiry into the planning application for terminal 5 will consider the access proposals. It is only right that they should be put forward for consideration and debate at the same time. My Department held a public consultation in September and October of last year and, in view of the public response to the M4 improvement

    569
    proposals at junction 4 and to the west of it, the Highways Agency is currently reassessing other options. It hopes to make an announcement in the summer.
    My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the third runway and runway capacity in the south-east working party, RUCATSE. I appreciate that it is an extremely important issue for my hon. Friend. It is only right that I clarify some of the background to the study for his benefit and that of the House.
    In 1988, the Civil Aviation Authority was asked by the then Secretary of State for Transport to look at the adequacy of runway capacity in the south-east. That advice was submitted in the document known as CAP 570 and it had three strands. There was forecast to be a need for a new runway's worth of capacity around the turn of the century. Several sites were identified that seemed technically feasible for meeting that demand, including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and that made full use of Luton's existing runway. A number of smaller options at more remote sites were also considered. Finally, the authority considered that, as I have already mentioned, although regional traffic would grow faster than in the south-east, capacity in the regions was unlikely to be a substitute for new capacity in the south-east.
    To take that forward, the RUCATSE working group was set up to examine the CAP 570 options from a wider perspective and identify the benefits and the impacts that would flow from development at each site. I know that some think that this should not have been done in the case of Heathrow, but given that the CAA had identified Heathrow as being technically feasible, it was only right that it should be considered as part of that process.
    To get as wide a viewpoint as possible, the RUCATSE working group included not only representatives from Government and the airports and the airlines, but local interest groups from the areas that might be affected by the various options. That report was published in July last year and it concluded that only the existing London airports would be able to cater for substantial amounts of traffic. It agreed with the CAA that regional airports were not a substitute for south-east capacity. However, most importantly for the purposes of today's debate, RUCATSE gave the fullest assessment of the consequences of developing further runway capacity at the four main London area airports.
    There are considerable impacts at each site, which the report fully sets out—the effects on designated land, demolition, including listed buildings, and one must not forget the noise impact that would arise from the additional traffic. Against those must be set the considerable economic benefits that would accrue as a result of any development and it would be wrong to overlook those.
    In summary, the impacts of a third runway at Heathrow would, as my hon. Friend said, be the greatest of all the sites that were contemplated. The scales of impacts of new runways at Gatwick and Stansted would be equal in noise and environmental terms, but overall I do not think that it is a matter of dispute that the Heathrow option would have the most serious impact.
    Our aim in the process has been to gather as much information as possible so that we can enable the most appropriate strategy to be adopted. The RUCATSE process has not been easy for those people potentially affected, so
    570
    it is important to understand that none of the options considered are proposals. My hon. Friend was right to make that clear and I can understand why he was so forceful in putting that point across. Those were indicative options to give some assessment of the impact of development at each site and they do not represent planning proposals. I can say to my hon. Friend and to the House that there is no question of any development proceeding without going through statutory procedures.
    We are now undertaking a thorough consultation exercise on the basis of the RUCATSE report. That will end on 31 May. I am acutely aware, and I am frequently reminded in correspondence and by colleagues, of the view that exercises of that type create difficulty for people attempting to move house. The Government will therefore act speedily to reduce the uncertainty for all those affected, as my hon. Friend requested. We shall take account of all the views that we have received and we aim to produce our responses before the end of the year.
    I appreciate that there are people who would like us to reach a firm view today, but it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to prejudge the outcome of the consultation and the consultation must therefore run its course. I can assure the House, and especially my hon. Friend, that all efforts will be made to resolve the matters as soon as we can.
    Mr. Dicks: Will it be possible for a statement to be made before the summer recess? To put my constituents through—one hopes that it will be for all of us—a long, hot summer, of uncertainty, discontent and further blight is too much to ask and too much to expect of them.
    Mr. Norris: Any person involved in the planning of large projects—in the past couple of years, I have been involved in some of the largest that we have undertaken—is aware that one of the most insidious consequences of those proposals is the creation of informal blight. That is to say that the minute that a proposal is mentioned it, not unnaturally, has an impact on the local area, which can have very real impacts on individuals who, for a specific reason, need, for example, to sell their homes where there is no statutory arrangement available to them to compensate them as eventually there would be if a proposal became a substantive application and was approved on inquiry and embarked on.
    Therefore, I fully understand the argument that my hon. Friend makes. He urges me to make a decision on those matters before the summer recess. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be crucially involved with the decision, and I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to let matters rest at that point. We shall bear in mind very carefully the forceful argument that my hon. Friend made about the desirability of ending informal blight wherever it is needless. I hope that he will merely allow me to say that those are important and far-reaching matters.
    We are discussing the development of our airport strategy, the implications of which will stretch far into the next century. It would be wrong to arrive at a decision speedily which was of a lesser quality than a sensible decision taken after proper deliberation. I shall bear in mind the observation that my hon. Friend has made.
    This has been a useful debate. I have no doubt that we shall return to similar debates in future. Heathrow is a huge national asset and a great success story, but a business of that size inevitably brings problems that we cannot sweep

    571
    under the carpet—we must find solutions. I hope that what I have said today will give confidence to those involved and to my hon. Friend that we are actively tackling the problems.
    The public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal will conduct a thorough investigation of that proposal before the inspector comes forward with his recommendation. The Government's response to the RUCATSE report is a separate matter, but one in which we will examine all the
    572
    evidence before we make any recommendation. We are aware of the concern that the subject has aroused, not just at Heathrow, but at Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. We shall consider all responses thoroughly and reach our conclusions before the end of the year.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock till Tuesday 3 May, pursuant to the Resolution [17 March].

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Wessex Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the costs to the public purse of the abandoned case at Winchester Crown court in respect of conspiracy to defraud Wessex regional health authority.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am not able to state the amount of the costs to the public purse as a re-trial was ordered by the trial judge and accurate figures will not be available until the case has been concluded and the bills of costs determined. In any event, not all these costs will have been wasted, as much of the preparation work by solicitors and counsel will not need repeating.

  Hague Conference on Private International Law
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the 1993–94 expenditure on the permanent bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law; and how many staff are employed and paid under this expenditure vote.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The United Kingdom's expenditure on the permanent bureau of the Hague Conference in 1993–94 amounted in total to £55,931·03—Dfl. 158,115.73. This amount was paid as a lump sum contribution in August 1993 and represents the United Kingdom's contribution towards the permanent bureau's total budget of Dfl. 2,317,418 for 1993–94.

  There are currently 12 permanent staff employed by the bureau. The latest available figures show that the total salary bill for the financial year 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993 was Dfl. 1,452,348.

  Juvenile Court Magistrates Panels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women from an ethnic community were members of a juvenile court magistrates' panel for courts covering the Greater London area as of 20 April.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information is available only in respect of the Inner London Commission area in which there are currently 10 men and nine women from the ethnic minority community sitting as members of the youth court panel, formerly the juvenile court panel.

  Civil Enforcement Agencies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what analysis has been reached by his Department of the responses received to the consultation paper on the organisation and management of civil enforcement agents.
  332
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The response to the public consultation was positive; the vast majority of consultees were pleased that the issues had been raised and agreed that the law should be simplified and procedural changes made to rule out abuses which might occur under the present system. A wide variety of views were received on the options set out in the consultation paper. The options are still being considered by the Lord Chancellor who will want to discuss his proposals with Government colleagues before making any further announcements.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce a limitation on the amount of legal aid available to persons accused of fraud.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am examining the provision of criminal legal aid as a whole as part of the fundamental review of my Department's expenditure currently under way. But any changes that may be made will need to take account of the presumption of innocence.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the final expenditure figures for legal aid for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Final figures are not yet available. However, provisional outturn figures show that the net cost of legal aid in 1993–94 was £1,210 million compared to a provision of £1,283 million. This represents an increase of £117 million on the previous year. Of the £73 million underspend against provision in 1993–94, £39 million related to criminal legal aid where the number of bills paid fell short of expectations, reflecting the fall in business in the criminal courts. Most of the remaining shortfall, £27 million, related to civil legal aid.

  Payments to the legal aid fund, particularly in respect of costs and damages recovered, amounted to £21 million more than anticipated, which we believe is mainly because of speedier settlements resulting from the transfer of business from the High Court to the county court following from the civil justice review. In addition, the number of civil bills paid were some 3 per cent. lower than expected, resulting in a reduction in expenditure of around £6 million. The remainder of the shortfall was due to green form expenditure being some 2 per cent. lower than estimated and the number of assistance by way of representation bills being some 30 per cent. lower than expected, resulting in shortfalls in expenditure of £3 million and £4 million respectively.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Public Record Office executive agencies for 1994–95.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The tables set out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for Her Majesty's Land Registry and for the Public Record Office.
  333

  Her Majesty's Land Registry Executive Agency Key performance targets 1994–95

  Indicator

  Target

  1. Financial

  Return on average capital employed:

  6 per cent.

  External Financing Limit:

  0 per cent.

  2. Efficiency

  Progressive reduction in unit costs in real terms:

  To achieve at least 2 per cent. reduction in the year.

  3. Productivity

  Progressive increase in output per post:

  To achieve at least 2 per cent. increase in the year.

  4. Speed of service

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled in 3 days:

  No less than 98 per cent.

  Average handling time for post-completion applications:

  Where no requisitions arise, no more than 5 weeks.

  5. Quality of service

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled free of error:

  No less than 99·75 per cent.

  Percentage of post-completion applications handled free of error:

  No less than 97·70 per cent.

  6. Development of Land Registration

  Number of computerised registers:

  To increase the number of registered titles in computerised format to 10·50 million.

  Note

  Fuller details of the Registry's performance targets are given in its "Business Plan", which is available from Her Majesty's Land Registry.

  Public Record Office Executive Agency Key performance targets 1994–95

  Indicator

  Target

  1. Efficiency

  Indicator: Unit cost of selecting and accessioning records

  To decrease the unit cost of selecting and accessioning records by 3 per cent.

  Indicator: Unit costs of providing record storage space, document productions and reader services

  To reduce the unit cost of providing records storage space by 1 per cent.

  To decrease the cost per document produced to readers by 4 per cent.

  To increase the reader service costs per reader visit (Census microfilms) by no more than 2 per cent.

  To decrease the reader service costs per reader visit (other records) by 2 per cent.

  Backlog of records awaiting review:

  To identify and quantify the backlog in two departments.

  To reduce the known backlog of records over 30 years old which have not been processed, by 1,500 feet (current known backlog 5,500 feet).

  Storage of records:

  81 per cent. of records to be stored to an acceptable standard (standard as recommended in BS5454).

  2. Quality of service

  Reader satisfaction:

  87 per cent. of reader satisfaction survey forms returned to have an overall assessment of "good", or better.

  334 335

  Indicator

  Target

  Response times for answering correspondence:

  To send replies to letters requiring a response by stock letter within one week.

  To send replies to other letters to Reader Services and
  Reprographic, Publishing and Publicity Departments (including
  those requiring estimates for copies) within three weeks.

  Document production times:

  To make documents (excluding documents produced on microform, or stored at Hayes, or requiring special handling)available to readers within the following maximum times:

  Kew: 35 minutes

  Chancery Lane: 40 minutes

  Note:

  Fuller details of the Office's performance targets are given in its "Business Plan", which is available from the Public Record Office.

PRIME MINISTER

  D-day Commemoration
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the involvement of the Cabinet Office in the appointment of Lowe Bell Communications as consultants to the D-day Commemoration.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Drugs
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) of 26 April, at column 101, concerning the actions and plans of Her Majesty's Government to fight drug addiction and related crime, what powers the Government possess to stop and search all cargo or persons wishing to enter the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has powers to stop and search persons, vessels, aircraft, vehicles and their cargo, wishing to enter the United Kingdom, in respect of prohibited goods, including drugs and firearms. As a contribution to the fight against drug addiction and related crime, Customs uses these powers to combat the smuggling of prohibited goods.

  War Widows
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations were made to him by the Royal British Legion to receive a deputation of war widows to discuss the Government's decision to reverse a decision of the High Court by amending the Service Pensions Order to restrict the pension entitlement of widows or ex-service men; what reply he made; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: As far as I am aware, none.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what direct consultations Ministers had with(a) the Royal British Legion and (b) the Normandy Veterans Association about the Government's decision to reverse a decision of the High Court by amending the Service Pensions Order to
  336
  restrict the pension entitlement of ex-service personnel and war widows; and if he will now himself directly consult the two organisations on the Government's decision.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The customary mechanism for consultation on proposed changes to war pensions legislation is through the statutory Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions. The committee includes representatives of several ex-service organisations, including two members each from the Royal British Legion and the Royal British Legion (Scotland).

  The Minister with special responsibility for war pensions at the Department of Social Security, my noble Friend, Lord Astor, consulted the committee on the recent proposals to amend legislation following a decision of the High Court which suggested that the law did not clearly reflect long-standing policy. We always consider, as we did on this occasion, any other points made by any individual or organisation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) members of the public and (b) organisations have sought a reference back to the boundary commission's revised proposals for South Yorkshire in respect of the boundaries for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, and Don Valley constituencies; and on what date he hopes a decision will be announced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the parliamentary boundary commission for England has received representations concerning the revised recommendations for South Yorkshire in respect of the boundaries for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, and Don Valley constituences from 144 members of the public and from 17 organisations. These were evenly divided between representations in support of the commission's revised recommendations and those which objected to them. A further 1,249 signatures were put to petitions relating to the recommendations. A news release announcing a decision in respect of the boundaries of the Barnsley, East and Mexborough, and Don Valley constituencies will be issued in May 1994.

  EC Fraud Investigations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that investigations into fraud in the EC are made immediately and publicly and that individuals are brought to account.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 4 March 1994 to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) at column 934.

  Murder
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) of 21 April,Official Report, column 1034, if he will list any family relationship of the victims of the first and second murder to the murderer;

  (2) how many convicted murderers released from prison since 1979 killed again; and if he will list the nature of the second conviction and any family relationship of the victims of the first murder and the second killing to the offender.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Nine murderers released from prison on life licence since 1979 have been convicted of a further killing. Seven were convicted of murder on the second occasion and two of manslaughter. Another murderer released on life licence committed suicide while awaiting trial for a second murder.

  In the cases of the seven double murderers, there were four where none of the victims were related to the offender. In one case, the victims of the first and second murders were members of the offender's family, his wife and sister respectively. In one case, the victim of the first murder was the father of the offender. In the remaining case, the victim of the second murder was the female partner of the offender.

  The two released murderers convicted of manslaughter killed people unrelated to them.

  Circus Animals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek a report into the transportation and general treatment of circus animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Circus animals are protected against unnecessary suffering by the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and by the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1992 and other legislation governing the importation and transport of animals. Additionally, the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 provides for the registration of trainers and the inspection of premises by local authorities. I have received no evidence to suggest that these provisions provide inadequate safeguards for circus animals.

  Physical Restraints
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales at which physical restraints have been used on(a) men and (b) women inmates and the number of times such restraints were used in each establishment during 1993.
  338
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 29 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list the prisons in England and Wales at which physical restraints have been used on (a) men and (b) women inmates and the number of times such restraints were used in each establishment during 1993.
  The number of applications of restraints under Rule 46 of the Prison Rules 1964 and Rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 are given in the attached table.
  The figures do not cover the use of restraints whilst prisoners are being escorted between Prison Service establishments, or between cells or to the governor's office within an establishment.

  Restraints1 applied to violent or refractory inmates of Prison Service establishments in England and Wales By establishment, 19932

  Number of applications

  Establishment and type

  Male

  Female

  Local prisons/remand centres

  Bristol

  4

  —

  Dorchester

  1

  —

  Highdown

  3

  —

  Holme House

  1

  —

  Hull

  6

  —

  Lincoln

  3

  —

  Liverpool

  13

  —

  Pentonville

  10

  —

  Portland

  6

  —

  Preston

  1

  —

  Reading

  1

  —

  Rochester

  2

  —

  Shrewsbury

  2

  —

  Swansea

  1

  —

  Woodhill

  6

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  5

  —

  Training prisons

  Acklington

  4

  —

  Camp Hill

  1

  —

  Cookham Wood

  —

  1

  Downview

  1

  —

  Elmley

  2

  —

  Featherstone

  2

  —

  Full Sutton

  4

  —

  Garth

  1

  —

  Highpoint

  2

  —

  Long Lartin

  2

  —

  Maidstone

  4

  —

  Norwich

  2

  —

  Nottingham

  1

  —

  Risley

  1

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  1

  —

  Swaleside

  5

  —

  Wakefield

  1

  —

  Wayland

  2

  —

  Whitemoor

  3

  —

  Winchester

  3

  —

  Closed YOI

  Feltham

  2

  —

  Wetherby

  1

  —

  TOTAL

  110

  1

  1 Loose canvas jacket, body belt, handcuffs, ankle straps and leather wrist straps.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths that have occurred in 1992 and, if available, in 1993, of persons detained in prison department establishments, stating in each case the age and sex of the inmates and cause of death, the inquest verdict, whether the inmate was sentenced or on remand, the establishment where the inmate was detained, whether death occurred there or in an outside hospital and, where the death occurred within the prison, whether the inmate was segregated either in the hospital wing or in the punishment block.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated
  29 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about deaths in Prison Service custody in England and Wales.
  Some of the information which you have requested is not held centrally and could not be obtained except at a disproportionate cost. The information that is available on self inflicted deaths in 1992 and 1993 is set out in the table. In each case the cause of death was hanging. We are also gathering together information on other deaths, including those from natural causes. I shall let you have this information as soon as it is available and also arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

  Self inflicted deaths 1992–93

  Age

  Sex

  Verdict

  Sentence

  Establishment

  1992

  30

  Male

  Killed self

  Sentenced

  Hull

  40

  Male

  suicide

  Remand

  Bristol

  34

  Male

  Open

  Sentenced

  Dorchester

  21

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Durham

  18

  Male

  Open

  Remand

  Feltham

  20

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Glen Parva

  36

  Male

  Open

  Remand

  Pentonville

  20

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Feltham

  25

  Male

  Killed self

  Remand

  Pentonville

  24

  Male

  Killed self

  Sentenced

  Norwich

  23

  Male

  Open

  Sentenced

  Stafford

  38

  Male

  Killed self

  Sentenced

  Wakefield

  16

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Deerbolt

  22

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Liverpool

  33

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Pentonville

  23

  Male

  Killed self

  Remand

  Hull

  21

  Male

  Accident

  Remand

  Leeds

  23

  Male

  Misadventure

  Remand

  Lewes

  30

  Male

  Misadventure

  Sentenced

  Swaleside

  20

  Female

  Misadventure

  Sentenced

  Styal

  24

  Male

  Killed self

  Remand

  Birmingham

  19

  Male

  Open

  Remand

  Brinsford

  47

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Wellingboro'

  21

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Ashwell

  18

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Hindley

  40

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Elmley

  30

  Female

  Misadventure

  Sentenced

  Holloway

  21

  Male

  Misadventure

  Remand

  Pentonville

  37

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Maidstone

  32

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Norwich

  25

  Male

  Suicide

  Convicted but unsentenced

  Durham

  51

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Gartree

  43

  Male

  Open

  Sentenced

  Parkhurst

  30

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Ashwell

  25

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Long Lartin

  22

  Male

  Killed self

  Remand

  Leeds

  28

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Leicester

  27

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Brixton

  21

  Male

  Open

  Sentenced

  Littlehey

  340

  Age

  Sex

  Verdict

  Sentence

  Establishment

  41

  Male

  Open

  Remand

  Wormwood Scrubs

  28

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Bullingdon

  1993

  27

  Male

  Open

  Remand

  Highdown

  26

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Leicester

  36

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Canterbury

  37

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Durham

  20

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Wetherby

  41

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Hull

  26

  Male

  Open

  Convicted but unsentenced

  Winchester

  27

  Male

  Open

  Convicted but unsentenced

  Brixton

  19

  Male

  Open

  Sentenced

  Hindley

  23

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Manchester

  26

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Leicester

  43

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Leeds

  24

  Male

  Suicide

  Convicted but unsentenced

  Lindholme

  37

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Bristol

  48

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Wakefield

  29

  Male

  Misadventure

  Sentenced

  Exeter

  25

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Belmarsh

  25

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Leicester

  23

  Male

  Suicide

  Convicted but unsentenced

  Leeds

  36

  Male

  Inquest verdict pending

  Sentenced

  Full Sutton

  26

  Male

  Open

  Sentenced

  Parkhurst

  24

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Wakefield

  56

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Lincoln

  26

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Liverpool

  51

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Lincoln

  34

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Lincoln

  39

  Male

  Inquest verdict pending

  Remand

  Manchester

  44

  Female

  Inquest verdict pending

  Remand

  Holloway

  37

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Shepton Mallet

  17

  Male

  Open

  Remand

  Exeter

  41

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Exeter

  33

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Woodhill

  38

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Nottingham

  43

  Male

  Inquest verdict pending

  Sentenced

  Wakefield

  23

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Long Lartin

  25

  Male

  Inquest verdict pending

  Sentenced

  Holme House

  22

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Exeter

  26

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Norwich

  29

  Male

  Open

  Remand

  Bristol

  33

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Norwich

  25

  Male

  Suicide

  Convicted but unsentenced

  Wandsworth

  28

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Wandsworth

  31

  Male

  Suicide

  Sentenced

  Dartmoor

  34

  Male

  Inquest verdict pending

  Remand

  Liverpool

  37

  Male

  Suicide

  Remand

  Lewes

  28

  Male

  Inquest verdict pending

  Sentenced

  Holme House

  21

  Male

  Inquest verdict pending

  Remand

  Wolds

  1992 total - 41

  1993 total - 47

  Firearm Certificates
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to raise the fee for firearms and shotgun certificates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The fees for the grant and renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates are currently under review. In reviewing fee levels we are taking into account the 1991 report of the Home Office working group
  341
  on the administration of the firearms licensing system. This identified models of best practice for police forces in administering the licensing system. The result of the subsequent costing exercise, undertaken by the consultants Ernst and Young, will also be taken into account.

  An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will construct a table showing the cost in each police force area of issuing a firearms or shotgun certificate.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available.

  Detainees
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that the treatment of detainees is not in breach of any convention which has been ratified by the United Kingdom.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions1 2 1993 Number of principal applicants and proportion of decisions (Per cent.)

  Decisions

  Applications for asylum

  Total decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum3

  Per cent.

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Per cent.

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave4

  Per cent.

  1993

  January

  1,960

  3,760

  90

  2

  2,250

  60

  1,420

  38

  February

  2,180

  5,240

  225

  4

  3,420

  65

  1,595

  30

  March

  1,765

  3,085

  420

  14

  1,615

  52

  1,050

  34

  April

  1,820

  2,305

  290

  13

  1,150

  50

  860

  37

  May

  1,865

  2,045

  145

  7

  1,150

  56

  750

  37

  June

  1,850

  1,150

  105

  9

  490

  43

  550

  48

  July

  1,995

  1,065

  65

  6

  260

  24

  745

  70

  August

  1,295

  685

  40

  6

  130

  19

  520

  76

  September

  1,990

  905

  55

  7

  145

  18

  605

  75

  October

  1,600

  885

  50

  6

  190

  21

  650

  73

  November

  1,805

  1,245

  55

  5

  210

  17

  975

  78

  December

  2,245

  1,125

  45

  4

  120

  11

  965

  86

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

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

  3 Excludes South East Asian refugees.

  4 Figures comprise: those refused after full consideration, those refused on safe third country grounds, and those refused under para. 180F (para 101 prior to 26 July 1993)of the Immigration Rules for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  Police Cells, Manchester
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list total numbers of convicted and remand prisoners held in police cells in Greater Manchester since 1 January; and how much they have cost.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Andrew Bennett, dated 29 April 1994.
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of prisoners held in police cells in Greater Manchester since 1 January and the costs involved.
  A sub-division into convicted and remands is not available centrally for the earlier part of the period from 1 January 1994. However, the total numbers of prisoners held in police cells in the Greater Manchester police area on each date from 1 January 1994 to 26 April 1994 are available and are set out in the attached table.
  342
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government are committed to their obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, and the protocol to that convention, and are satisfied that United Kingdom legislation and practice do not breach these or other relevant international obligations.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of applicants for asylum in each month of 1993; and what proportion was refused in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1993 on the number of applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom and decisions made, is given in the table.

  A total of £21,633 has been paid to Greater Manchester Police Authority. Further invoices, totalling some £488,000, have recently been received and are under consideration.

  Date

  Number

  1 January 1994

  0

  2 January 1994

  0

  3 January 1994

  3

  4 to 23 January 1994

  0

  24 January 1994

  2

  25 January 1994

  0

  26 January 1994

  0

  27 January 1994

  2

  28 January 1994

  0

  29 January 1994

  0

  30 January 1994

  0

  31 January 1994

  9

  1 February 1994

  37

  2 February 1994

  27

  3 February 1994

  37

  4 February 1994

  35

  5 February 1994

  38

  6 February 1994

  38

  7 February 1994

  39

  8 February 1994

  69

  9 February 1994

  61

  10 February 1994

  76

  11 February 1994

  92

  343

  Date

  Number

  12 February 1994

  92

  13 February 1994

  92

  14 February 1994

  108

  15 February 1994

  134

  16 February 1994

  174

  17 February 1994

  179

  18 February 1994

  202

  19 February 1994

  208

  20 February 1994

  154

  21 February 1994

  185

  22 February 1994

  195

  23 February 1994

  185

  24 February 1994

  195

  25 February 1994

  182

  26 February 1994

  194

  27 February 1994

  166

  28 February 1994

  171

  1 March 1994

  196

  2 March 1994

  207

  3 March 1994

  225

  4 March 1994

  203

  5 March 1994

  197

  6 March 1994

  196

  7 March 1994

  180

  8 March 1994

  169

  9 March 1994

  165

  10 March 1994

  189

  11 March 1994

  175

  12 March 1994

  188

  13 March 1994

  188

  14 March 1994

  190

  15 March 1994

  225

  16 March 1994

  221

  17 March 1994

  248

  18 March 1994

  226

  19 March 1994

  233

  20 March 1994

  233

  21 March 1994

  197

  22 March 1994

  201

  23 March 1994

  197

  24 March 1994

  199

  25 March 1994

  183

  26 March 1994

  187

  27 March 1994

  187

  28 March 1994

  180

  29 March 1994

  184

  30 March 1994

  170

  31 March 1994

  166

  1 April 1994

  166

  2 April 1994

  159

  3 April 1994

  159

  4 April 1994

  197

  5 April 1994

  177

  6 April 1994

  155

  7 April 1994

  163

  8 April 1994

  163

  9 April 1994

  165

  10 April 1994

  165

  11 April 1994

  198

  12 April 1994

  204

  13 April 1994

  185

  14 April 1994

  168

  15 April 1994

  139

  16 April 1994

  139

  17 April 1994

  140

  18 April 1994

  123

  19 April 1994

  129

  20 April 1994

  121

  21 April 1994

  109

  22 April 1994

  110

  23 April 1994

  119

  24 April 1994

  119

  25 April 1994

  141

  26 April 1994

  134

  Iraqi Business Men
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visas have been granted to Iraqi business men in each month since the conclusion of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics of visas granted are recorded on the basis of the categories of visas issued at each post and not by the nationality of the applicant. In addition, visiting business men are granted a "visit" visa. There are no sub-divisions within this category.

  Diver Mist
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the principle of police primacy was maintained throughout exercise Diver Mist.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The principle that the police co-ordinate the activities of all those responding at and around the scene, as described in the Home Office publication "Dealing with Disaster", was maintained in full throughout exercise Diver Mist.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plugs and Sockets
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be discussing with his European partners the implications of the EC proposals to harmonise the plugs and sockets of electrical appliances throughout the EC.

  Mr. Heseltine
  There is no such proposal. If one were to be put forward we would consider it.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the dangers there are for United Kingdom consumers in any transitional period from the harmonisation of electric plugs and sockets; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the safety of consumers in the United Kingdom is not compromised.

  Mr. Heseltine
  CENELEC—the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation—the relevant standards-making body, has not published a standard for a harmonised European plug and socket system against which an accurate assessment could be made. In considering whether any change to our present standards might be desirable at some future date, full account will be taken of consumer safety issues. There is no EC proposal for harmonisation.

  Industry Council Meeting
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the EC Industry Council held in Luxembourg on 22 April.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Industry Council meeting in Luxembourg held on Friday 22 April.
  345
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The main item on the agenda of the Industry Council held on 22 April was steel. Commissioner Van Miert gave an interim report, in advance of the full report expected on 1 May, on monitoring of the conditions attaching to the six state aid cases agreed by the Council last December—Ilva, Ekostahl, Freital, Siderurgia Nacional, CSI and Sidenor. I was supported by several other member states in underlining the importance the United Kingdom attaches to rigorous monitoring to ensure that the conditions agreed by the December Council are met.

  Commissioner Bangemann gave a report on progress towards restructuring of the EC steel industry. There was agreement to prolong until the autumn the support measures—which include enhanced European Coal and Steel Community social aid, market monitoring, a more liberal approach to mergers and joint ventures, and external measures—agreed in February last year. I suggested additional references in the conclusions agreed by the Council to the importance of monitoring of the steel state aid cases and these were accepted.

  The Council reached a satisfactory agreement to reduce steadily ECSC lending activities in the run-up to the expiry of the treaty of Paris in 2002. Importantly, it also ensures progress towards phasing out of the ECSC levy before 2002. The agreement by the Council allowed certain loan applications, which have been blocked pending resolution of this issue, to be approved.

  There was a wide-ranging debate on industrial competitiveness in the context of the follow-up to the Delors White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment published last December. I underlined the importance of increased labour market flexibility and reduced labour costs as a means of improving competitiveness, as well as the need to minimise the burden of regulation on business.

  The Council agreed conclusions on the textile and clothing industries and a resolution on the automobile industry.

  Commissioner Vanni d'Archirafi presented an outline of an integrated programme for small and medium-sized enterprises which sets out areas for joint action with member states and a two-pronged Community contribution relating to improving the environment for SMEs, and some support measures. I reminded the Commission that the main responsibility for SME policy lies with member states but I undertook to consider the proposals when they are spelt out in greater detail. I was able to welcome the importance the Commission was now attaching to deregulation.

  To end the Council there was a brief discussion of the Commission's annual report on competition. No votes were taken.

  Laboratories
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether operational budgets and targets have been agreed for(a) AEA Technology, (b) the national environmental technology centre, (c) the national physical laboratory, (d) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and (e) the national engineering laboratory for 1994–95; and how those budgets and targets have changed from those for 1993–94.

  Mr. Heseltine
  AEA Technology and the national environmental technology centre are part of the United 346
  Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority: they are not set separate budgets and targets by my Department. The UKAEA has been set a negative external financing limit of £8.8 million for 1994–95. Other financial targets have yet to be set. In 1993–94, the UKAEA was set a negative external financing limit of £2·1 million; it was also set a 12·1 per cent. average annual return on net assets employed. Its internal budgets are commercially sensitive and are not published.

  In the light of the restructuring of the national physical laboratory, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the national engineering laboratory to match the downturn in forecast work load, the laboratories' budgets and targets for 1994–95 are still being finalised. A comparison with the budgets and targets that were set for 1993–94 cannot therefore be provided.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to implement his consultants' recommendation that an overall steering committee and project manager should be appointed for the DTI laboratories.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes.

  Government Chemist
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether primary legislation would be required to fully privatise the laboratory of the Government Chemist; and in what form the post of the Government Chemist would survive after privatisation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No primary legislation is required to privatise LGC. The post of Government Chemist will continue.

  Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many responses he received to his consultation document on the directive on unfair terms in contracts; and when he proposes to finalise his conclusions, and place legislation before Parliament.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have received 89 such responses. It is intended to lay regulations implementing the EC Directive on Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts before Parliament in time for them to enter into force, subject to parliamentary approval, by 31 December 1994.

  Industry Awards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the total number of applications, the number of successful projects, the number of participating companies and the total sum committed in(a) SMART and (b) SPUR awards; and if he will provide a regional breakdown.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of applications, the number of successful projects and the sum committed between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994 under the small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART —and support for products under research—SPURschemes are shown in the tables. Both schemes offer support to single businesses and the number of successful projects is the number of participating companies.
  347

  SMART

  Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology

  Region/Office

  Applications

  Successful projects

  Sum Committed (£ million)

  East

  180

  28

  1·32

  East Midlands

  118

  26

  1·28

  North East

  72

  9

  0·39

  NorthWest

  175

  27

  1·27

  South East

  443

  61

  2·99

  South West

  178

  33

  1·57

  West Midlands

  145

  28

  1·31

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  116

  25

  1·20

  Welsh Office

  107

  24

  1·14

  Scottish Office

  150

  32

  1·57

  Northern Ireland Office

  37

  9

  0·45

  TOTAL

  1,721

  302

  14·49

  SPUR

  Support for Products Under Research

  Region/Office

  Applications

  Successful projects

  Sum Committed (£ million)

  East

  8

  13

  1·25

  East Midlands

  9

  8

  0·92

  North East

  10

  6

  0·49

  North West

  30

  17

  1·19

  Southeast

  28

  24

  2·30

  SouthWest

  24

  16

  1·24

  West Midlands

  20

  18

  0·80

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  20

  19

  1·71

  Welsh Office

  12

  8

  0·76

  Scottish Office

  12

  8

  0·91

  TOTAL

  173

  137

  11·57

  Note: Some successful projects result from applications in the previous financial year.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, columns 891–92, what was the number of responses and applications to (a) the 1994 SMART—small firms merit award for research and technology—scheme and (b) the 1994 Queen's awards.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I hope to be able to announce shortly the number of responses and applications to the 1994 SMART scheme. For the 1994 Queen's awards there were 10,733 inquiries and 1,682 applications.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of Sir Frank Layfield's recommendations from the Sizewell B inquiry were accepted by the then Department of Energy.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the decision letter of 12 March 1987, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

  Package Holidays
  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward legislation to allow deposits in excess of 10 per cent. of the actual purchase price to be charged for goods or services only in circumstances where the seller secures those deposits by means of insurance,348
  bonding or by using a trust account, in a similar way to that required for package holidays by the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, SI 1992, No. 3288, but with improved provision for enforcement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Such regulation would be bureaucratic and expensive, and would, through its adverse effect on the cashflow of businesses, be likely to put up prices. This would not be in the long-term interests of the consumer.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the criteria, and procedure of review, to be used to devise the map which will determine the three categories of land use, as specified in the Coal Authority explanatory note.

  Mr. Eggar
  I intend to make available in due course a draft map of the coalfields indicating the areas in which the terms for access by the coalbed methane industry will be judged. The criteria for delineating the areas will form part of the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade,what plans he has to harmonise the regulatory framework for seismic testing to identify(a) coal deposits and (b) coalbed methane.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no plans to harmonise the regulations for seismic testing at this stage. It is important that the regulatory framework for each activity reflects the needs of the relevant industry. Seismic testing to identify coalbed methane is subject to the Petroleum (Production) Regulations. Under the regulatory regime for the privatised coal industry, those wishing to explore for coal will require the consent of the owner of the coal, which would in most cases be the Coal Authority, to enter that coal. A draft model Coal Authority exploration licence, which indicates the form it is envisaged that licence will take, has been made available for consultation to all interested parties.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what commitments those companies which are granted methane drainage licences will be required to fulfil in relation to the commencement of mining the coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Methane drainage licences are granted to enable those engaged in mining the coal to drain methane in order to make mines safe. There are no commitments in relation to the commencement of coal mining, as the sole purpose of this licence is safety.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he secured a report from the gas regulator concerning arrangements which may affect the price of gas in certain areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Director General of Gas Supply has no duty to report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on gas pricing issues. However, as the President announced on 21 December 1993 the DTI and Ofgas are jointly preparing a consultation paper on the regulation of gas supply after the ending of the statutory monopoly. I expect that this will be published soon.

  Eurostat
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what examination he has made of the basis for the figures in the first issue of the Eurostat newsletter "EDICOM/INTRASTAT" for the trade balance between the United Kingdom and France, Germany and Italy shown in the list for the United Kingdom and for each of those countries;

  (2) what assessment he has made of recent Eurostat returns in assessing the accuracy of United Kingdom returns of the trade deficit between the United Kingdom and France, Italy and Germany.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer to the answer given by the Paymaster General to the hon. Member on 26 April, 1994 Official Report, column 88.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans there are to close to the public any of the palaces of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency; for what purpose; and for how long.

  Mr. Sproat
  The 1994–97 corporate plan of the Historic Royal Palaces, which is currently being considered by Ministers, proposes the closure of the state apartments and royal ceremonial dress collection at Kensington palace temporarily for a period of about 18 months, starting no later than autumn 1995, to allow the complete refurbishment, re-presentation and re-interpretation of these parts of the palace, including the updating of fire and security precautions.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for how many regular publications he was responsible in 1993–94; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department publishes an annual expenditure plans report, which is a sale publication via Her Majesty's Stationery Office. A short guidebook "A Guide to the Department and its Sponsored Bodies" is updated and distributed free of charge at intervals—circulation 2,500 copies. A number of other annual reports are published each year and the most recent issues of these are:"Report by the Secretary of State for National Heritage on Library and Information Matters during 1993" (HMSO, HoC 339, £7·10 net).
  "Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee Annual Reports 1991–92 and 1992–93".
  "Export of Works of Art 1992–93, Thirty-ninth Report of the Reviewing Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December 1952" (HMSO, Cm 2355, £14·45 net).
  "Report by the Secretary of State for National Heritage on the Public Lending Right Scheme 1992–93" (HMSO, HoC 61, £7·65 net).

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidance to the Local Government Commission indicating the evidence he will expect to be put forward in any recommendation for a new unitary local authority of effective arrangements for the provision of personal social services within a new authority and for the co-ordination of such services with health services.

  Mr. Curry
  Annex B of the Department's policy guidance to the Local Government Commission sets out considerations relevant to a range of local government functions, including personal social services. A copy of the guidance is in the Library.

  It is for the Commission to decide what evidence it will submit in support to its recommendations. After receiving the Commission's report on an area it is, however, open to my right hon. Friend to direct the Commission to supply him with additional information.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been written off in total in customer debts in the PSA for the 1992–93 appropriation accounts; and if he will give details of the constituent amounts.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1992–93 PSA Services appropriation account losses statement included the following abandoned claims:

  £

  Milton Keynes Community Transport

  37,933·53

  Conder Projects

  8,407·07

  In addition, £4,674,767·59 was charged to subhead D10 of the account, in respect of the unrecoverable works debts owed by non Exchequer customers:

  £

  Tate Gallery/Tate in the North

  3,276,911·64

  Imperial War Museum

  761,611·42

  Natural History Museum

  273,138·76

  Miscellaneous other debts individually not exceeding £100,000

  363,105·77

  4,674,767·59

  Boat Dwellers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the law in respect of the payment of business rates and council tax by boat dwellers whose boats are moored in boatyards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Energy Conservation Bill
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) of 20 April,Official Report, column 531, how many letters he had received which were opposed to the Energy Conservation Bill.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average council tax per household for each district in England.

  Mr. Curry
  I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey executive agency in the year 1994–95.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 1994–95.

  1. Recover at least 75 per cent. of the total costs incurred by the Agency.

  2. Complete and make available to customers the initial digital conversion of basic scale mapping for the whole of Great Britain by 31 March 1995.

  3. Survey and map at the basic scales 886,000 units of change.

  4. Despatch 90 per cent. of Land-Line digital map units within six working days of a valid order being received.

  5. Despatch 90 per cent. of small scale maps within five working days of a valid order being received.

  6. Operate a telephone help line service for customers between 8.30 am and 5.00 pm on working days, a 10 second response time within these hours, and a telephone answering service at all other times.

  These targets require a number of challenging improvements over good performance in previous years.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sleeping Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions are in place on advertising drugs available without prescriptioin which are designed to aid sleep; what checks are carried out to ensure that addictive or potentially harmful drugs are not advertised for mass consumption; what health warnings should be given in such advertisements; in what ways regulations or guidelines on the advertisement of such drugs have been amended or relaxed within the past five years; what plans he has to introduce new legislation, statutory orders or guidelines to regulate the promotion of aids to sleep which are available without prescription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Licensed medicines may be advertised only under the stringent controls of the Medicines Act 1968 and supporting regulations. These ensure that the advertising is in accordance with the product licence and is not misleading. Products which are available without prescription may be advertised to the public, in compliance with the Medicines (Labelling and Advertising to the 352
  Public) Regulations 1978. These regulations prohibit the advertising of a treatment for sleeplessness of insomnia. Advertising for the relief of temporary sleeplessness is permitted.

  Medicines which are considered to be addictive or potentially harmful when used without medical supervision are available only on prescription and may not be advertised to the public. Proposed legislation to amend the 1978 regulations in order to implement Council directive 92/28/EEC is currently under consideration.

  Agriculture
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will extend the time for claims to be submitted to the agricultural development operational programme to the end of 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Commission has ruled that financial support under the Northern Ireland agricultural development operational programme will be limited to payments made to farmers by 31 December 1994. In order to comply with this condition it was necessary for the Department to require all claims for grant to be submitted by 30 June 1994 so as to allow sufficient time for claims to be verified and payments issued to farmers by 31 December.

  Because of the need to ensure that all payments are made by 31 December 1994 it is not possible to extend the time for claims to be submitted.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total salary of the CSA chief executive in 1993–94; which part of that figure relates to performance; and what is the maximum payment possible under the performance payment part of the salary agreement.

  Mr. Burt
  The current basic salary of the Child Support Agency chief executive is £48,520 plus London weighting of £1,776. Details of the total remuneration, including any performance bonus, will appear in the agency's annual report for 1993–94. However it is not the policy of the Department to give details of chief executive performance pay arrangements.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the total sum collected by the Child Support Agency in maintenance payments in the first year of operation; and of this, what sum went to parents with care and their children and how much to the Treasury via reduced benefit payments.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 28 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the latest estimate of the total sum collected by the Child Support Agency in maintenance payments in the first year of the Agency's operations.

  353
  To the end of February 1994, £186 million had been collected. This includes £155 million paid direct from absent parents to parents with care, which has offset benefit spending, and £31 million paid through the Agency's collection service. Of the latter figure, £1·8 million has been passed on to parents with care, and £24·4 million has offset benefit spending. The balance remained in the Agency's account awaiting allocation.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many cases in which the absent parent had not been paying maintenance at the time the inquiry form was issued by the Child Support Agency a maintenance assessment had been finalised at the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage that is of the total number of cases where the absent parent was not paying maintenance when the inquiry form was issued;

  (2) in how many cases where an inquiry form has been issued by the Child Support Agency to an absent parent the parent concerned was not paying maintenance on a regular basis at the time the form was issued; and what percentage that represents of all cases in which an inquiry form has been issued at the latest date for which figures are available.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 28 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the total number of maintenance payments made to the Child Support Agency.
  At 28 February 1994, 420,600 absent parents had been issued with maintenance enquiry forms and 188,600 maintenance assessments had been completed. Although the Agency does not keep detailed figures on the proportion of these cases in which maintenance was not already being paid, we estimate that some 60 per cent. of cases taken on during this period were cases where maintenance was not previously in payment.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample was last updated; what plans he has to update those data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The data contained in the annual one per cent. sample are regularly reviewed to reflect changes to existing policies or the introduction of new benefits. It is expected that the data contained in the May 1993 sample will be available this summer.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the circumstances in which a deduction from income support can be made by the Benefits Agency, in the order in which they rank for payment, and the total deduction that can be made as a percentage of the total income support payment.

  Mr. Burt
  Payments may be made direct from income support to certain third party creditors in the circumstances specified in schedules 9 and 9A to the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, SI No. 1968.354
  Also, deduction may be made for payment of unpaid community charge, council tax and fines and recovery of overpayments of benefit under the appropriate regulatory provisions—SI Nos. 507/1989 and 545/1990, 494/1993, 2182/1993 and 664/1988 respectively. Social fund loans are also recoverable by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, through deductions from income support. The rules governing limits on deductions and the priority order for deductions are contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of schedule 9.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support in England, Scotland, Wales and Britain there are; and what percentage of the total had deductions made from benefit for social fund repayments and fuel bills in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Number of cases

  Percentage

  England

  Deductions for fuel

  185,000

  4·3

  Deductions for Social Fund repayment

  458,000

  10·7

  Deductions for fuel and Social Fund

  84,000

  2·0

  Number of Income Support recipients

  4,282,000

  100·0

  Wales

  Deductions for fuel

  17,000

  5·9

  Deductions for Social Fund repayment

  34,000

  11·9

  Deductions for fuel and Social Fund

  8,000

  2·8

  Number of Income Support recipients

  287,000

  100·0

  Scotland

  Deductions for fuel

  42,000

  8·1

  Deductions for Social Fund repayment

  94,000

  18·1

  Deductions for fuel and Social Fund

  22,000

  4·2

  Number of Income Support recipients

  519,000

  100·0

  Great Britain

  Deductions for fuel

  243,000

  4·8

  Deductions for Social Fund repayment

  586,000

  11·5

  Deductions for fuel and Social Fund

  114,000

  2·2

  Number of Income Support recipients

  5,088,000

  100·0

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  2. Fuel costs include payments for gas and/or electricity. Deductions may be for current charges only or may include the standard amount in respect of arrears.

  3. There will be a degree of overlap in the deductions figures in that people with deductions for fuel costs may also have a deduction for repayment of a social fund loan. Numbers with fuel cost deductions and those with social fund repayment deductions do not therefore exactly total.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; and how many were referred on to an agency chief executive.

  Mr. Hague
  In the stipulated five-month period a total of 1,183 questions were asked of this Department. The POLIS database in the Library has identified 65 questions
  355
  as not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost or because the information was not held centrally. Agency chief executives replied to 150 questions.

  Severe Hardship Unit, Glasgow
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what training has been provided for local staff in handling the problems associated with 16 and 17-year-old applicants following the closure of the severe hardship unit in Glasgow; and what other additional resources have been made available to assist staff to deal with the changes which result;

  (2) what savings he expects to accrue to his Department as a result of the closure of the severe hardship unit in Glasgow.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Mike Watson, dated 28 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning suggestions that the Severe Hardship Claims Unit (SHCU) in Glasgow is being closed. The SHCU unit is not being closed, but there is to be a change in emphasis away from the SHCU to the Benefits Agency (BA) Districts.
  Following the comments in the 8th Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, recommendations were made about the claims procedures for discretionary awards for 16/17 year old customers. As a result, from the 4 April 1994 decisions on the majority of these claims will be made by locally based BA staff, rather than by contacting the SHCU. The SHCU will, however, be required to make decisions on the more complex cases and those where the District Office feel that a severe hardship payment should not be made.
  Before the process of devolving this work commenced, training for the handling of this type of claim was revised. All staff authorised to make decisions about the award of benefit to 16/17 year old customers must complete the new training package before they can carry out these duties. To ensure that all staff are fully trained the SHCU is providing a complete service to all offices until 2 May 1994. In addition, further guidance is available in the form of a Handbook, "Income Support for 16/17 year olds" which has been recently revised and updated. The revised Handbook was issued to all of the BA's District Offices in March 1994 and a copy of it has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  There will be no increase in the workload for locally based BA staff, but in fact a small administrative saving, calculated to be 10 staff years. Instead of having to contact the SHCU in Glasgow, staff will make decisions locally immediately following an interview, thereby leading to an improved service for 16/17 year olds.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the revised framework document for the Contributions Agency.

  Mr. Hague
  The Contributions Agency's revised framework document has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

WALES

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the programme for the disposal of Forestry Commission land in Wales from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 2000;

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to allow the disposal programme of Forestry Commission land in Wales to be increased without his permission.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the five years from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1994 the Forestry Commission sold some 5,500 hectares of forest land in Wales and currently expects to sell about a further 9,000 hectares by the year 2000. Ministers asked the commission to dispose of 100,000 hectares of forest land in Great Britain between 1989 and the end of the century. The commission is responsible for selecting properties for sale in accordance with criteria laid down by Ministers. Any change to the overall disposals programme would be subject to the agreement of my right hon. Friend.

  Consultants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of Touche Ross consultancy exercise, which included the questionnaire sent out on 1 February to all school governors in Wales; if Touche Ross were awarded the contract as a result of competitive tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of the survey's costs were provided in my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 17 February 1994 at column 947. Touche Ross Management Consultants was appointed to carry out the survey following a tendering exercise in accordance with standard procedures.

  Grant-maintained Schools (Promotion)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the recent conference held in the Copthorne hotel, Calverhouse Cross, to promote grant-maintained schools in Cardiff and the Vale.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total cost of the three conferences on grant-maintained status held last year was £46,210. It is not possible to identify separately within this figure the costs incurred in relation to the conference held in Cardiff.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time jobs were created in Wales in 1993 in (i) the manufacturing industry, (ii) the service industry and (iii) all industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: Comprehensive information on the number of jobs created is not available. According to the Employment Department's latest quarterly estimates series the change in the number of employees in employment is shown in the following table.
  357

  Change in number of employees in employment, December 1992-December 1993: Wales

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Manufacturing industry

  -1,100

  +10,600

  Service industry

  +2,500

  +1,900

  All industries

  +1,400

  +5,300

  Source: NOMIS.

SCOTLAND

  Land Grants
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask, the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the amounts(a) applied for and (b) received by the Scottish Office from the European Community for land grants relating to industrial regional aid and the amounts paid to Scottish applicants for land grants for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office does not itself undertake land renewal work. Local authorities and local enterprise companies do, however, carry out and assist with land renewal. Such activities are normally eligible to compete for European regional development fund grant if the work is carried out in an area designated under the European structural funds. Detailed records of projects are not kept centrally either for applications or grant received but it is considered that such work would form only a small part of any programme.

  Education Statistics
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of those aged 16 to 18 years in Scotland are in full-time education; and how many are in each educational sector.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available information is in respect of 1992.

  16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education in Scotland, January 19921

  Number (thousandas)

  Percentage of population in age group

  All full-time education

  82·3

  41

  of which School

  40·7

  20

  Vocational further education

  16·9

  9

  Higher education

  24·7

  12

  1 Age as at 31 August 1991.

  Jobs
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the percentage of new jobs likely to be created by the end of the decade that will be jobs traditionally carried out by women.

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

  Playgrounds and Playing Fields
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools in Scotland have sold playgrounds and playing fields since restrictions were lifted.
  358
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not recorded centrally on disposals by local authorities of school playgrounds and school playing fields or other land and buildings held for educational purposes. There has been no recent change in the statutory requirements governing the provision to be made for school playgrounds and school playing fields in Scotland set out in the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the income in 1994–95 for each district council in Scotland comes directly from(a) central Government sources, (b) council tax and (c) other sources.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about local authority income from "other sources" is not held centrally. The figures for aggregate external finance—AEF—and income from the council tax are given in the table.

  AEF per cent.

  Council tax per cent.

  Borders

  87·2

  12·8

  Central

  85·1

  14·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  87·1

  12·9

  Fife

  84·9

  15·1

  Grampian

  85·3

  14·7

  Highland

  88·0

  12·0

  Lothian

  81·5

  18·5

  Strathclyde

  87·9

  12·1

  Tayside

  85·2

  14·8

  Note:

  1. AEF support includes Revenue Support Grant, Distributable amount of NDRI and Specific Grants (except Urban Programme specific grant, figures for which are not readily available).

  2. Council Tax is inclusive of amounts of Council Tax Benefit met by grant from the Department of Social Security.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Government grant per head of population was allocated to each district council in Scotland for 1994–95.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is in the table.

  Total AEF per head of population (£)

  Berwickshire

  119

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  115

  Roxburgh

  126

  Tweeddale

  121

  Clackmannan

  146

  Falkirk

  133

  Stirling

  168

  Annandale and Eskdale

  99

  Nithsdale

  117

  Stewartry

  102

  Wigtown

  137

  Dunfermline

  122

  Kirkcaldy

  124

  North East Fife

  129

  Aberdeen City

  142

  Banff and Buchan

  122

  Gordon

  115

  Kincardine and Deeside

  105

  Moray

  130

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  125

  Caithness

  134

  359

  Total AEF per head of population (£)

  Inverness

  114

  Lochaber

  159

  Nairn

  110

  Ross and Cromarty

  167

  Skye and Lochalsh

  201

  Sutherland

  173

  East Lothian

  139

  Edinburgh City

  177

  Midlothian

  129

  West Lothian

  139

  Argyll and Bute

  221

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  106

  Clydebank

  168

  Clydesdale

  140

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  124

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  143

  Cunninghame

  151

  Dumbarton

  132

  East Kilbride

  110

  Eastwood

  82

  Glasgow City

  232

  Hamilton

  140

  Inverclyde

  169

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  129

  Kyle and Carrick

  131

  Monklands

  169

  Motherwell

  152

  Renfrew

  146

  Strathkelvin

  124

  Angus

  118

  Dundee City

  175

  Perth and Kinross

  132

  Note:

  1. AEF support includes Revenue Support Grant and Specific Grants (except Urban Programme specific grant, figures for which are not readily available). Non-domestic rate income is not distributed to district councils.

  2. AEF per head of population calculated using the Register General for Scotland's 1992 mid-year estimates of total population.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the income for 1994–95 of each regional council in Scotland comes directly from(a) central Government sources, (b) council tax and (c) other sources.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about local authority income from "other sources" is not held centrally. The figures for aggregate external finance—AEF—and income from the council tax are given in the table.

  AEF per cent.

  Council tax per cent.

  Berwickshire

  83·5

  16·5

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  75·9

  24·1

  Roxburgh

  78·8

  21·2

  Tweeddale

  77·6

  22·4

  Clackmannan

  73·7

  26·3

  Falkirk

  82·7

  17·3

  Stirling

  77·2

  22·8

  Annandale and Eskdale

  70·5

  29·5

  Nithsdale

  72·9

  27·1

  Stewartry

  78·5

  21·5

  Wigtown

  76·7

  23·3

  Dunfermline

  76·7

  23·3

  Kirkcaldy

  71·9

  28·1

  North East Fife

  69·2

  30·8

  Aberdeen City

  68·8

  31·2

  Banff and Buchan

  80·8

  19·2

  Gordon

  77·4

  22·6

  Kincardine and Deeside

  82·1

  17·9

  360

  AEF per cent.

  Council tax per cent.

  Moray

  80·5

  19·5

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  75·3

  24·7

  Caithness

  84·8

  15·2

  Inverness

  74·8

  25·2

  Lochaber

  75·8

  24·2

  Nairn

  73·2

  26·8

  Ross and Cromarty

  77·5

  22·5

  Skye and Lochalsh

  83·7

  16·3

  Sutherland

  82·2

  17·8

  East Lothian

  74·4

  25·6

  Edinburgh City

  65·0

  35·0

  Midlothian

  72·9

  27·1

  West Lothian

  83·8

  16·2

  Argyll and Bute

  76·6

  23·4

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  65·0

  35·0

  Clydebank

  76·8

  23·2

  Clydesdale

  71·1

  28·9

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  71·4

  28·6

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  76·1

  23·9

  Cunninghame

  75·5

  24·5

  Dumbarton

  66·6

  33·4

  East Kilbride

  66·7

  33·3

  Eastwood

  64·9

  35·1

  Glasgow City

  77·8

  22·2

  Hamilton

  69·8

  30·2

  Inverclyde

  78·4

  21·6

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  73·6

  26·4

  Kyle and Carrick

  63·3

  36·7

  Monklands

  74·7

  25·3

  Motherwell

  77·0

  23·0

  Renfrew

  71·6

  28·4

  Strathkelvin

  62·4

  37·6

  Angus

  79·3

  20·7

  Dundee City

  72·3

  27·7

  Perth and Kinross

  76·3

  23·7

  Notes:

  1. AEF support includes revenue support grant and specific grants (except urban programme specific grant, figures for which are not readily available). Non-domestic rate income is not distributed to district councils.

  2. AEF per head of population calculated using the register general for Scotland's 1992 mid-year estimates of total population.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) the total work force and (b) working women are in the service sector.

  Mr. Stewart
  For December 1993, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that 73 per cent. of all employees in employment in Scotland worked in the service sector. The percentage of female employees in employment who work in the service sector is estimated to be 85 per cent.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women workers there were in 1990 and at the latest date available; and how many of these were in part-time employment.

  Mr. Stewart
  For December 1990, it is estimated that there were 960,900 female employees in employment in Scotland, of whom 419,700 were in part-time employment. For December 1993, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that there were 994,500 female employees in employment of whom 447,800 were in part-time employment.
  361
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of average male earnings is earned by women(a) manual and (b) non-manual workers in the service sector.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information from the new earnings survey, at April 1993, shows that the average weekly earnings of full-time non-manual women in the service sector is equivalent to 68 per cent. of the average for non-manual men workers in the service sector. The average weekly earnings of full-time manual women workers in the service sector is equivalent to 67 per cent. of the average for manual men workers. These estimates are based on average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland whose pay was unaffected by absence—source: Employment Department.

  Leisure Activities
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland Promoting and representing the built heritage what amount was spent in Scotland in 1992 and 1993 on leisure activities for under-16s and those aged 16 to 21.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  School Meals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the nutritional standards of schools meals in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no plans to do so. It is for education authorities, which are responsible for the administration of the school meal service, to decide the content and standard of school meals.

  Government Grant
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Government grant was allocated per head of population in each regional and islands council in Scotland in 1994–95.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is given in the table.

  Total AEF per head of population £

  Borders

  928

  Central

  817

  Dumfries and Galloway

  911

  Fife

  821

  Grampian

  786

  Highland

  1,029

  Lothian

  778

  Strathclyde

  883

  Tayside

  850

  Orkney

  1,814

  Shetland

  2,063

  Western Isles

  2,254

  Note:

  1. AEF support includes Revenue Support Grant, Distributable amount of NDRI and Specific Grants (except Urban Programme specific grant, figures for which are not readily available).

  2. AEF per head of population calculated using the Register General for Scotland's 1992 mid-year estimates of total population.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set for Historic Scotland for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  I have set Historic Scotland the following key performance targets for 1994–95:

  Target

  Protecting the built heritage

  i. Number of ancient monuments of national importance to be scheduled.

  350

  ii. Number of listed building resurvey units to be completed.

  150

  iii. Number of historic building repair grants accepted

  137

  iv. Conservation of monuments in care.

  reduce maintenance backlog

  Promoting and representing the built heritage

  i. Number of visitors to monuments incare.

  £2·4 million

  ii. Total income.

  £7·9 million

  Management

  i. Value for money savings on maintenance of monuments in care.

  3·5 per cent.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Criminal Cases
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will include in the revised code for the Crown prosecutors and in the statement on the treatment of victims and witnesses by the Crown Prosecution Service a section on notification to or consultation with victims or their families where discontinuance of a serious case is contemplated.

  The Attorney-General
  In general, it is the responsibility of the police to keep victims or their families informed of decisions by which they are affected. This approach is set out in the victims charter and was supported by the Royal Commission on criminal justice which reported last year. If a case is to be discontinued, the CPS will, wherever practicable, consult the police in advance. The CPS seeks to ensure that the police are clear about the reasons for any proposed discontinuance so that information can be passed on to the victim and their respective interests taken into account when deciding whether proceedings would be in the public interest.

  A draft of the revised code for Crown prosecutors is currently being considered by interested parties on the criminal justice system including victim support. The director is hoping to publish in the early summer.

  The CPS keeps under review its statement on the treatment of victims and witnesses. There will be an opportunity to consider whether it should contain information about the termination of cases when the statement is next revised. The suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend has been drawn to the attention of the director.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the Israel-Palestine Liberation Organisation talks in Cairo, with particular reference to settlements, release of prisoners, security forces and the powers of the Palestinian judiciary.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand good progress is being made at the talks in Cairo. Settlements are a final status issue. The Israel-PLO declaration of principles makes it clear that it is to be discussed as soon as possible during the interim period of five years leading to final status, but not later than the beginning of the third year. The interim period starts upon Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho. Israeli negotiators have stated that Israel will release 5,000 of the remaining 8,400 Palestinian prisoners. They have however said that they will not release prisoners who are members of Hamas. Agreement has been reached on a Palestinian police force of 9,000 men for Gaza and Jericho. Judicial issues are still under discussion.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position of the Israeli Government on withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prime Minister Rabin has said that any "significant" withdrawal would be dependent upon a referendum in Israel.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Israel's current position on the removal of settlements on the Golan Heights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prime Minister Rabin has stated publicly that he would be prepared to evacuate settlements anywhere in the occupied territories if that were necessary for peace.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Palestinian police are scheduled to enter the Gaza strip and Jericho; and what representations he has been making to the Government of Israel to make this date as early as possible.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Palestinian police are due to assume their duties in Gaza and Jericho once an agreement on Israeli withdrawal is signed. We have emphasised to both sides the importance we attach to rapid conclusion of this agreement.

  Lin Qi Qun
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 12, with regard to correspondence concerning Lin Qi Qun, if he will investigate the state of affairs in his office which has led him to the statement in his answer that his officials have asked for copies following the faxing of such copies to his office three weeks before; if he will take steps to improve procedures in his office following its loss of the original correspondence last December and several reminders sent
  364
  following that date; and if he will now reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton without further delay.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have written to the right hon. Member.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Distribution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the distribution of Government aid to overseas countries and to prevent such aid from being absorbed by officials of recipient countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The possibility of diversion of aid for illicit purposes is considered at all stages in the planning and administration of the aid programme. Most procurement is undertaken by ODA's Overseas Appointments and Contract Department or through registered British procurement agents subject to ODA monitoring, with goods and services generally obtained from United Kingdom sources. Implementation of projects and programmes in the recipient country is, where appropriate, supervised by British consultants or technical co-operation officers on contract to the ODA. Progress at all stages is monitored by ODA advisers, often located in regional offices for more direct and frequent access.

  These mechanisms and procedures are continually reviewed to ensure that aid continues to achieve its intended objectives.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part of the further tranche of £15 million provided for in relief aid to the Horn of Africa will be applied to Sudan; and if he will give details of the work it will support.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We expect to spend about £5 million in Sudan, subject to need and our ability to deliver humanitarian assistance. It is available to support the activities of non-governmental organisations and UN agencies including the provision of shelter for the displaced, drugs, water and supplementary feeding.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Nigerian Government concerning the current situation of the Ogoni people in Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have consistently underlined our wish to see good government and respect for human rights for all the people of Nigeria.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the current shortfall in national health service nursing staff.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for local employers to determine the level of nursing staff they require.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members, occupations and other interests of(a) the National Blood Authority and (b) the NHS Supplies Authority together with the remuneration expenses, travel, pension and any other allowances or benefits relating to the chair or non-executive membership of each.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available will be placed in the Library.

  Over-65s
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS funds were spent on those over 65 years in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of public health care funds was spent on those over 65 years old in each other country of the EC.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is estimated that around 40 per cent. of gross current expenditure on hospital and community health services in England during 1990–91 was attributable to people aged 65 years and over, who represent approximately 16 per cent. of the population. Figures for other European Community countries are not available centrally.

  Paracetamol Overdose
  Mr. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of admissions to accident and emergency facilities is caused by paracetamol overdose.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available for accident and emergency attenders. However, the number of hospital in-patients cases associated with poisoning by paracetamol are recorded in a wider category which also includes poisoning by acentanilide and phenacetin. In 1990–91 there were 30,479 finished consultant episodes where poisoning by these substances was shown as the primary diagnosis.

  Prescription Charges (Asthmatics)
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what monitoring her Department has undertaken of the affordability of prescription charges for asthmatics;

  (2) what representations her Department has received about asthmatics' ability to pay prescription charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No specific monitoring is undertaken. We periodically receive representations about extending the list of medical conditions which confer exemption from prescription charges to include other illnesses, including asthma. Charge remission available under the national health service low income scheme and prescription pre-payment certificates ensure that no one need be deterred for financial reasons from obtaining necessary medication.

  Data Protection
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners(a) hold computerised records and (b) are registered under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to a survey conducted on behalf of the Department in 1993 an estimated 79 per cent.366
  of general practices possess a computer to hold practice records, of which 90 per cent. use the computer for recording some clinical information about patients. Information about registration under the Data Protection Act is not available centrally.

  Contraceptive Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contraceptive claim forms were submitted by general practitioners in each of the last 10 years and in each month of 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about the number of contraceptive claim forms submitted by general practitioners is not available in the form requested.

  Press Conferences
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press conferences she and each Minister in her Department have held in the last six months.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Literature Line
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the health literature line, including the cost of producing and sending the leaflets, in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost for 1993–94 is £263,346. Information on costs for the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 and on producing and sending the leaflets is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  BCG Vaccinations
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 March,Official Report, columns 890–1, if she will list the 31 districts which do not offer Bacille-Calmette-Guérin vaccination to neonates.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. In 1991 the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre carried out a national survey into the policies and practices of district health authorities for BCG immunisation. The information was collected "in confidence" so as to ensure that the results were as complete as possible. Since 1991 the Department of Health has restated its guidance on BCG immunisation and many health authorities have reviewed their policies.

  NHS Property (Disposal)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the redundant NHS hospitals that have been disposed of without planning permission since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 31 March at column 1038.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the regional health authorities pre-1 April that were obliged to consult the Valuation Office for professional advice on the disposal of national health service property;
  367
  (2) under what circumstances regional health authorities should consult, before 1 April, the Valuation Office even though they are untied.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities which were untied from the district valuer, prior to April 1994, are required to secure the recommendation of the district valuer in respect of acquisitions or disposals where, at the outset, the value appeared to be more than £5 million.

  Regional health authorities which were not untied as of April 1994 were as follows:

  Mersey RHA

  West Midlands RHA

  North East Thames RHA

  North West Thames RHA

  South Western RHA

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 295, when she intends to issue guidance to family health services authorities on private prescriptions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance will be issued shortly.

  Departmental Policy
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, how she intends to strengthen the arrangements for controlling communicable diseases and other health hazards;

  (2) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April, Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what new information she will be providing on communicable diseases and other health hazards.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government remain committed to preventing communicable diseases and reducing health hazards.

  Joint guidance from the Departments of Health and Environment, HSG(93)56 "Public Health Responsibilities of the NHS Roles of Others", was issued on 24 November 1993 to provide firm guidance on communicable disease control arrangements. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  A joint Department of Health/Public Health Laboratory Service working group is currently reviewing and extending the guidance issued to the national health service in 1988 about hospital infection control, with the aim of issuing revised guidelines to the NHS in the autumn.

  Childhood immunisation uptake rates are now at record levels and the incidence of childhood diseases are at their lowest ever levels. The memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", which provides guidance on all matters concerning immunisation, is currently being updated and a new edition will be sent to all doctors and other health care professionals involved in immunisation. Details of the plans to introduce the new tetanus/diphtheria booster dose for teenagers will be announced shortly. We recently issued guidance to the health service on "Aids/HIV—Infected Health Care Workers" and "Protecting Health Care Workers and Patients from Hepatitis B Infection". Copies of these publications are available in the Library. We are aware of the concerns
  368
  about the recent small increase in cases of tuberculosis. We are currently funding a survey by the Public Health Laboratory Service into notification of tuberculosis and recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health established an inter-departmental working group to consider all aspects of tuberculosis.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, how she plans to implement the open government code of practice throughout her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two documents on how the code of practice will operate for the Department of Health have been produced: one is a guide to the public, the other is guidance issued to all staff in the Department. Copies of each will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what further developments in the internal market she intends to secure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We propose to secure continued improvements in national health service patient care and choice by strengthening purchasing. We are preparing legislation to enable district health authorities and family health services authorities to merge, completing the move to trust status of providers, promoting fundholding so that all general practitioners who are able and wish to can become fundholders and ensuring that the internal market operates to increase competition between providers for the benefit of patients.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what plans she is making to ensure that amendments are made to the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 March at column 264, with regard to supervised discharge and extended leave. We have also announced our intention to amend the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 relating to the return of detained patients who go absent without leave, and are now considering the responses to our consultation paper on this subject.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what timetable she envisages for the establishment of the Medical Devices Directorate as a "next steps" agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  The matter is currently under consideration. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what communication strategies she intends to implement; and what budget she has given this priority.
  369
  Mr. Sackville
  Communications with national health service staff and with other agencies involved in the planning and provision of health and social services is an important and ongoing part of the work of the NHS executive.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what steps she is taking to introduce new adoption legislation.

  Mr. Bowis
  As stated in the White Paper "Adoption: The Future" the Government will bring forward new adoption legislation as, soon as the legislative programme allows.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column, 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what steps she is taking to ensure joint working between health and local authorities.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities and local authorities have a statutory duty to co-operate to secure and advance the health and welfare of the people of England and Wales. An important aspect of this is the joint commissioning of community care services by health and local authorities. Work is in hand to develop practical guidance to encourage this.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, regarding her plans for the work of her Department, what new safeguards she will be introducing to ensure that medicines and medical devices sold or in use in the United Kingdom meet standards of safety.

  Mr. Sackville
  A range of controls to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines already exists under powers set out in the Medicines Act 1968. These will be developed further with the coming into force of new European Community procedures—"Future Systems"—from 1 January 1995, which provide for high standards of pre- and post-licensing control across the European Community.

  With respect to medical devices, from 1 January 1993 a series of three medical devices directives regulating the safety and marketing of medical devices throughout the European Community started to come into effect in the United Kingdom. The directives will eventually cover all medical devices on sale or in use in the United Kingdom. They are designed to ensure safety and performance and to prohibit the marketing of any devices which compromise the health and safety of patients, users, and where appropriate, any other persons.

  Lewisham Hospital
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she intends to make with regard to Lewisham hospital if her proposed merger of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals goes ahead; what increase she envisages in the number of accident and emergency cases to be dealt with at Lewisham hospital; and how many additional beds Lewisham hospital will require to meet the increase.
  370
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The South East London health authority is working with Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust, King's healthcare national health service trust and Lewisham hospital NHS trust to assess the likely changes in patient flows both in attendances at emergency departments and in-patient admissions as a result of proposed changes in the Guy's and St. Thomas's trust. Proposals will be the subject of public consultation later this year.

  Treatment Priorities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received in relation to the report of the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales with respect to the differentiation in levels of priority for treatment other than in relation to clinical need; what consultations she has had with the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts with respect to the contents of the report; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We will study the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales report carefully. By ensuring value for money, fundholders are making more resources available to the national health service; savings are ploughed back into patient care, waiting lists are reduced, and services are made more accessible, for example through out-patient clinics held in the surgery. We regularly meet the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts to discuss how we can build on the success of NHS reforms.

  Private Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all those national health service projects worth over £250,000 which have been financed by private sector money since February 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 April 1994, c. 293]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply. The amended table lists 19 schemes, omitting United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust which was incorrecly included.

  National health service projects using private capital over £1 million approved since February 1993

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Agency: lease of office accommodation.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority: clinical waste incineration.

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust: Conquest Hospital staff residences.

  West Middlesex Hospital: endoscopy unit.

  North Bedfordshire Health Authority: residential accommodation at Steppingley and Biggleswade.

  Bolton Health Authority: clinical waste incineration.

  New River Health Authority: lease of office accommodation.

  Leicester Mental Health Services: lease of new Trust Headquarters.

  William Harvey Hospital (Ashford): clinical waste incineration.

  Barnet Health Authority: residential accommodation in Hendon.

  Plymouth and Torbay Health Authority: clinical waste incineration.

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority: staff residences at Carlton Gate.

  East Sussex Health Authority: residential accommodation for continuing care of the elderly.

  371

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority: provision of residential accommodation.

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust: clinical waste incineration.

  Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust: staff accommodation.

  St. James' NHS Trust, Leeds: combined heat and power plant.

  Hertfordshire Health. Agency: lease of office accommodation.

  Hillingdon Health Agency: lease of office accommodation.

TREASURY

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Nelson
  The percentage of Asian and black people who took up public appointments made by the Treasury in 1993 are 5·5 per cent. and nil respectively.

  The data on the ethnic origin of public appointees are collected in confidence. I am therefore unable to list their names.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts of advance payments for fuel had been paid by Government Departments as at 31 March.

  Sir John Cope
  Government Departments were already subject to VAT on their business use of fuel. Hence expenditure on fuel and power by Government Departments was largely unaffected by the extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received from(a) individuals and (b) organisations on the imposition of VAT on domestic energy since the original announcement that it would be levied; and how many in each case were in favour of the increase.

  Sir John Cope
  I have received a large number of representations on fuel and power, but the records that are kept do not give sufficient information to answer the question in detail.

  Fraud (EC Grants)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to United Kingdom public funds of fraud involving grants from the EC for which investigations have been completed and charges upheld; and what is his estimate of the cost to public funds for cases which are still under investigation.

  Sir John Cope
  It is not possible to give an estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom of EC budget fraud either in the case of investigations that have been completed or in the case of those that are continuing. The cost depends on a number of factors, including: how much was actually paid from Community funds; how much has been recovered or offset from other expenditure; where the fraud took place—that is, in the United Kingdom, other member state or third country; and whether it involved expenditure from the budget or, for example, evasion of duties depriving the Community of revenue.
  372
  What is, however, clear is that fraud against the financial interests of the Community, and therefore of taxpayers in member states, is at an unacceptable level. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of the campaign to reduce fraud and otherwise improve financial management in the Community.

  Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he expects the change in the trade deficit consignment on the reassessment of the Intrastat calculations to have on the exchange rate; when he expects the revised figures to be published; and what preparations he is making to safeguard the pound sterling.

  Mr. Nelson
  With regard to the publication of any necessary adjustments to the estimates of the balance of United Kingdom visible trade, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 April 1994,Official Report, column 364.

  Sterling's exchange rate is floating and it is not my practice to make predictions about its level. Movements in sterling's exchange rate form part of our continuing assessment of monetary conditions but we do not set target rates.

  VAT
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the gross and net yields for value added tax for 1992 and 1993 and the first quarter of 1994.

  Sir John Cope
  The yields for value added tax gross and net of repayments are as follows:

  £ billion

  1992

  1993

  11994

  Gross

  63·5

  64·5

  17·3

  Net

  37·7

  37·8

  10·7

  1 First quarter.

  It should be noted that the difference between the gross and net figures given above relates only to actual repayments to traders.

  Privatised Companies (Debt)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the disposal of some or all of the Treasury's holding of debt in privatised companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Treasury has agreed to the repurchase of debt issued to Her Majesty's Government by Eastern Electricity plc. The debt is:

  £ million

  Per cent.

  59

  112·661

  59

  212·365

  1 Due September 1999.

  2 Due September 2008.

  Eastern Electricity plc will today pay Her Majesty's Treasury £144·827 million to repurchase these bonds.

  As announced on 1 March, the Treasury is planning to dispose in 1994–95 of part of its holding of debt in BT plc and certain of the privatised electricity companies, as part

  373
  of its strategy for meeting its published proceeds target of £5·5 billion. The Treasury is considering its strategy for this debt disposal.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if she will make it her policy to ensure that the transport of live animals will be banned in an effective way from the United Kingdom as soon as possible.

  Mr. Soames
  A ban on the export of animals would be illegal under the treaty of Rome. The Government are pressing the Community to adopt high standards of protection for all animals during transport.

  Primates
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 750, whether arrangements for approval of establishments as sources of primates under directive 92/65/EEC have now been put in place by agriculture departments in Great Britain.

  Mr. Soames
  Yes, we have written to such establishments setting out the procedures for approval under directive 92/65.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current average weekly, and hourly earnings, exclusive of overtime, for each year since 1989, of full-time employees in the categories(a) male manual, (b) male non-manual, (c) female manual, (d) female non-manual, (e) male and female manual and (f) male and female non-manual in (i) Doncaster, (ii) Barnsley, (iii) Rotherham and (iv) Sheffield; and what are the equivalent national figures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information closest to that requested is for the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire.

  Information for South Yorkshire and for Great Britain can be found in the "New Earnings Survey" reports for each of the years requested. Information for manual and non-manual men and women workers separately can be found in tables 108, 109, 111 and 112 of part E and information for manual and non-manual men and women workers combined in table X5 of part A. Copies of these publications can be found in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; and how many were referred on to an agency chief executive.
  374
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions from November 1992 to March 1993, recorded on the POLIS database as including a reference to disproportionate cost or to information not held or collected centrally was 32.

  During the same period, the number of questions referred for answer to the Employment Service, the only agency in the Department with responsibility for replying to parliamentary questions on operational matters was 67.

  This represents 3·2 and 6·8 per cent. respectively of all parliamentary questions replied to by the Department in the same period.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which organisations in Southwark had contracts with South Thames training and enterprise council in 1993–94 and will have no contract with South Thames training and enterprise council in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  South Thames training and enterprise council has not renewed contracts in 1994–95 with seven of the training organisations in Southwark that it contracted with in 1993–94. The organisations that did not have their contracts renewed are as follows:

  Caribbean Teachers Association

  Community Youth Provisions

  Euroworld Data Ltd.

  Mother Goose Nurseries

  South Bank University

  Southwark College

  Walworth Garden Services Ltd.

  TECs are responsible for planning and arranging Government-funded training and enterprise programmes. TECs uses their knowledge of the local labour market to help them determine the range and nature of such training and enterprise initiatives that will best meet the needs of both individuals and businesses in their area. These initiatives are delivered through a wide range of colleges, training providers and enterprise agencies. It is for TECs to decide the most appropriate organisations with which to contract.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 288, what has been the earliest date in each of the past five years on which any voluntary organisations have been told whether they have had funding for European social fund projects starting on 1 January of that year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The earliest date on which any voluntary sector project received notification that it had approval for ESF funding is shown was:

  in 1990–December 1990;

  in 1991–10 May 1991;

  in 1992–13 January 1992;

  in 1993–19 January 1993.

  These figures relate to projects approved in the period 1990–93 under objectives 3 and 4. Before 1990, the European Commission considered projects for approval and the data are not held.

  Water Pollution, Worcester
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what role the Health and Safety Executive played in the water pollution incident in Worcester on 15 April; what advice it gave to other public or private bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The water pollution incident in Worcester on 15 April is being investigated by the National Rivers Authority and Shropshire county council. The NRA has the primary responsibility for enforcing legislation on water pollution liaising with the Health and Safety Executive as necessary. The HSE has given no advice to public or private bodies but is being kept informed of developments.

  Health and Safety
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many investigations undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive into accidents, incidents and dangerous occurrences in the north-west and in each of the standard administrative regions of England concluded that employee fatigue had played a role.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for(a) the Taunton travel-to-work area, (b) Somerset (c) the south-west region and (d) the United Kingdom the total numbers of (i) males and (ii) females unemployed for (1) May 1979, (2) June 1983, (3) August 1986, (4) June 1987, (5) March 1991, (6) March 1992, (7) March 1993 and (8) March 1994.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Seasonally adjusted clamant unemployment figures are available regionally from April 1974. For travel-to-work areas and counties, only unadjusted unemployment figures are available and these go back to June 1983. All this data can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YT recipients in each age group had income below the income support level in(a) the latest available period before 11 April and (b) the period after that date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to reduce industrial tribunal waiting lists.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have asked officials to review the operation of the industrial tribunals with a view to identifying any changes which would help them to cope with an increasing volume and complexity of cases with reduced delays, while containing demands on public expenditure. Meanwhile, additional resources are being allocated to help contain the delays.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the unemployment rate of disabled people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The labour force survey asks people of working age if they currently have a health problem or disability which limits the kind of paid work they can do. Estimates based on answers to this question will include people with short-term health problems and disabilities as well as those registered as disabled.

  The latest LFS estimates for summer 1993 show that, in Great Britain, the International Labour Organisation unemployment rate for such people was 22 per cent.

  Employment Appeals Tribunal
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many appellants to the employment appeals tribunal had preliminary hearings in each of the months following the retirment of Mr. Justice Wood.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The figures are shown in the table:

  Number

  October 1993

  28

  November 1993

  49

  December 1993

  31

  January 1994

  39

  February 1994

  83

  March 1994

  32

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many appellants to the employment appeals tribunal had preliminary hearings in each of the 24 months prior to the retirement of Mr. Justice Wood.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The figures are shown in the table:

  Number

  October 1991

  22

  November 1991

  24

  December 1991

  19

  January 1992

  19

  February 1992

  15

  March 1992

  16

  April 1992

  2

  May 1992

  6

  June 1992

  12

  July 1992

  41

  August 1992

  6

  September 1992

  18

  October 1992

  34

  November 1992

  37

  December 1992

  24

  January 1993

  53

  February 1993

  57

  March 1993

  16

  April 1993

  25

  May 1993

  30

  June 1993

  34

  July 1993

  52

  August 1993

  1

  September 1993

  0

  Labour Statistics, Scotland
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees in Scotland are in part-time jobs.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: I have been asked to reply. For December 1993, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that 542,000 employees in employment in Scotland worked part-time.

EDUCATION

  School Transport
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will extend to all local education authorities the dispensation agreed with Strathclyde council education authority in respect of finance of seat belt installation in school minibuses and buses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to apply to local education authorities in England the same rules on school transport as are applied by Strathclyde regional council; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will publish the guidance issued by his Department to local education authorities in respect of the safety of schoolchildren in transit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has national responsibility for vehicle safety matters.

  The Department for Education has already published general advice on school transport to all local education authorities in a circular letter on 21 January 1994. A copy is in the Library. It recommended that seat belts should be worn where fitted, and reminded authorities that home-to-school transport which they provide or arrange must carry pupils in reasonable safety and comfort. It also advised authorities to encourage contractors to observe the school transport safety code to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which was issued with the endorsement of the Secretary of State in 1991. Copies were distributed to all education authorities and schools.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that the skills of those responsible for teaching sex education in schools are co-ordinated with those of health education professionals in the Department of Health.

  Mr. Forth
  The forthcoming circular on sex education will offer schools advice on liaison with, and the use made of, external sources of help, including health service professionals.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to set up an inter-departmental working group to share, develop and co-ordinate good practice in the delivery of sex education in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The forthcoming draft circular will give schools comprehensive advice on the discharge of their statutory responsibilities for sex education. Further guidance is already available from a variety of sources.
  378
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to ensure that all schools are able to take advantage of training for delivering sex education, in the period prior to the implementation of the Education Act 1993.

  Mr. Forth
  The grants for education support and training programme for 1994–95 extends the specific grant already available to support the basic curriculum and assessment to cover teacher in-service training and materials associated with the new arrangements for sex education. Schools are free to use this grant as they judge fit.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy that children with special educational needs should be educated as near to their home as possible; and what account is taken of the wishes of children and parents in this matter.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Act 1993 requires local education authorities to comply with any preference of parents of a child with a statement of special educational needs regarding the maintained school they want their child to attend. This duty applies unless the school is unsuitable to the child's needs or the child's placement would be incompatible with the interests of other children already in the school or with the efficient use of the LEA's resources.

  The draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, which we expect to be debated in both Houses shortly, contains extensive guidance on the placement of children with special educational needs, emphasising the importance of parents' views and that, so far as possible, the views of the child are taken into account during the statutory assessment and in the statement.

  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration has been given to the use of financial incentives to local education authorities for them to reduce the proportion of children with statements of special educational needs; what link has been made between the amount of money that a local authority receives from Government sources and the reduction of provision in places in special needs schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, which we expect to be debated in both Houses shortly, sets criteria aimed at ensuring that statutory assessments and statements are made only when necessary. It also emphasises the role of mainstream schools in making special educational provision for the majority of pupils with special educational needs.

  LEAs may receive capital allocations following the approval of statutory proposals involving surplus place reduction in maintained special schools. Any such allocation will depend on the authority's need for capital expenditure to implement the proposals. My right hon. Friend always takes into account value for money and capital costs when determining such proposals.

  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that provision
  379
  for special educational needs places is made a consequence of the informed judgment of parents, education psychologists, teachers and social services as to what is the most desirable education that a child with special needs should receive, and to avoid influence by statistical targets for the percentage of children with special needs in the local authority.

  Mr. Forth
  The draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, which we expect to be debated in both Houses shortly, offers guidance designed to help teachers, LEA officers and other professionals work together with parents to ensure that every child receives the educational provision appropriate to his or her individual special educational needs.

  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy governing the percentage of children with statements of special educational needs in a local authority in maintained schools; and in what form this policy is conveyed to local authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government's policy is set out in the Education Act 1993 and the draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, which we expect to be debated in both Houses shortly, and which, subject to parliamentary approval, will be distributed to all maintained schools and local education authorities. The policy is that children with statements of special educational needs should, subject to the wishes of their parents, be educated alongside their peers in mainstream schools, so long as this would be compatible with the child receiving the special educational provision he or she needs; the interests of other children already in the school; and the efficient use of resources.

  The placement of an individual child is a matter for judgment by the local education authority in the light of a statutory assessment of the child: where appropriate and subject to the views of parents, placement might be made in a school not maintained by the LEA.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in England received(a) more than £1 million and (b) more than £250,000 per annum from his Department under the operation of the assisted places scheme; and if he will list the 50 schools which received most money from his Department under the assisted places scheme, in order, along with the total amounts which they received in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information for parts(a) and (b) is as follows: (a) 4; (b) 161. The other information requested is shown in the table:

  Assisted places schemes 1992–93 academic year

  School name

  Fees/expenses remitted by DFE £ thousands

  Dulwich College

  1,291

  Wisbech Grammar school

  1,148

  St. Edward's College Liverpool

  1,104

  Emanuel school

  1,046

  Latymer Upper school

  972

  Alleyn's school Dulwich

  902

  380

  School name

  Fees/expenses remitted by DFE £ thousands

  Haberdasher's Aske's Boys school

  851

  Royal Grammar school Worcester

  826

  Newcastle-under-Lyme school

  815

  Hereford Cathedral school

  806

  Bristol Grammar school

  759

  Wolverhampton Grammar school

  749

  Bolton school (Boys)

  734

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar school Blackburn

  726

  James Allen's Girls school

  721

  St. Mary's College Crosby

  720

  Manchester Grammar school

  714

  King Edward VI school Southampton

  705

  Kings school Worcester

  701

  Wellington school Somerset

  692

  St. Bede's Manchester

  682

  Bolton school (Girls)

  673

  Plymouth College

  671

  Brighton College

  645

  William Hulme's Grammar school Manchester

  629

  King Edward's school Birmingham

  624

  Godolphin and Latymer school

  621

  Bradford Grammar school

  620

  Batley Grammar school

  588

  Liverpool College

  584

  Edgehill College

  583

  Colfe's school

  579

  Birkenhead High school (GPDST)

  564

  Hampton school

  563

  Merchant Taylor's Boys Liverpool

  553

  City of London school

  552

  Exeter school

  548

  Stockport Grammar school

  547

  St. John's College Southsea

  547

  Denstone College

  541

  Malvern College

  540

  Kingston Grammar school

  533

  Queen Mary school

  532

  Bury Grammar school (Girls)

  530

  Pocklington school

  530

  Royal Grammar school Guildford

  516

  Trinity School of John Whitgift Croydon

  513

  King Edward VII school Lytham

  512

  Old Palace school

  511

  Royal Grammar school Newcastle

  508

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; and how many were referred on to an agency chief executive.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions by the Department for the period requested recorded in the POLIS database as including a reference to the information being available only at disproportionate cost was 56. The number of questions answered recorded by the POLIS database as including a reference to the question being referred to an agency chief executive was two.

TRANSPORT

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the executive agencies in his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have set the following key targets for 1994–95 for the Department of Transport's executive agencies.

  The key targets for the Coastguard Agency are to:
  Discharge my responsibility for maritime search and rescue (SAR), through the agency's own or dedicated assets, by maintaining a 24. hours SAR co-ordinating capability within, and including the coasts and shoreline of, the United Kingdom search and rescue region (UKSRR) and by maintaining a comprehensive radio reception and transmission coverage of the UKSRR which enables SAR co-ordination action for the duration of incidents without interruption or equipment malfunction;
  Determine through the United Kingdom SAR and local SAR Committees the availability, readiness, capability and responsiveness of SAR resources, to seek agreements with the appropriate controlling authorities for improvements as necessary and to report to me, identifying any improvements, by March 1995;
  Pursue an SAR prevention strategy through training, patrols, and public relations endeavours, including a safety campaign to be launched by 30 April (costing £25,000) designed to reduce incidents involving sea canoeists;
  Maintain a fully operational 24 hours channel navigation information service covering the Dover strait traffic separation scheme, in concert with the appropriate French authorities;
  Discharge my responsibility for the prevention of marine pollution by the maintenance of a national contingency plan, and in particular to test the effectiveness of the plan by undertaking a major exercise and to report to me on the outcome by 31 March 1995, and where appropriate to activate the plan within 30 minutes of an incident and commence action at sea to deal with a spill of dispersible oil within four hours of notification of an incident;
  Carry out 500 hours of aerial surveillance of the sea area for which the United Kingdom has responsibility, to detect or deter incidents of marine pollution, including illegal discharges from ships;
  Make a running costs efficiency gain of 3 per cent.; and;
  Investigate, and report to me by December 1994, on a means of measuring awareness of, and satisfaction with, the services provided by the agency.
  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are:
  To meet or better an overall efficiency improvement of 4 per cent.;
  Deliver 95 per cent. of ordinary driving licence cases to customers within 12 working days of receipt and deliver medical cases within 22 working days of receipt;
  Deliver 95 per cent. of vocational driving licence cases within 10 working days of receipt and deliver medical cases within 30 working days of receipt;
  Deliver 95 per cent. of first provisional driving licence cases within 11 working days of receipt;
  Deliver 95 per cent. of cases involving changes to vehicle registration documents within 13 working days of receipt;
  Deliver 95 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles within 13 working days of receipt;
  Answer 80 per cent. of telephone enquiries within 30 seconds;
  Deliver answers to 95 per cent. of written enquiries within eight working days of receipt; and
  Complete successfully 457,000 VED enforcement cases by imposition of penalties and recover through penalties and duty from induced relicensing at least £2·60 for every £1 (full costs) spent by DVLA on VED enforcement.
  The targets and key tasks for the Highways Agency are to:
  382
  Report, using existing management information systems, on the agency's internal unit costs for the management and supervision of new construction schemes over £3 million in value, compared to costs in the last three years;
  Develop an information system for attributing all staff and other costs to the agency's outputs, identifying those attributable to motorways and other trunk roads separately wherever possible, so as to extend the coverage of unit costs beyond the new construction of national schemes, and enable comprehensive targets for reductions in unit costs to be set in future years;
  Meet the aims and targets enshrined within The Citizen's Charter, The Road User's Charter and the agency's charter standard statement Your Home and Trunk Road Proposals;
  Develop systems for measuring the performance of the network, including quality of service indicators, and introducing targets for 1995–96;
  Reach scheme milestones designated with the prioritised roads programme and listed in The National Roads Programme: Summary and Milestones as follows: complete 18 schemes; start works on 22 schemes; and reach 85 per cent. of the other scheme milestones;
  State in the agency's Annual Report the average time taken to complete schemes that are completed in 1994–95, compared with the performance in recent years, and the average time between milestones for all those schemes that reach milestones in 1994–95, and compare this with previous years' performance;
  Complete all schemes within the approved scheme brief (that is, on time and to budget) and, with the central Department, devise appropriate performance measures;
  Monitor, and state in the Annual Report, the benefit-cost ratio for the national roads programme based on the scheme briefs; and agree with the central Department a target level for 1995–96 and following years, below which the average should not fall;
  Monitor, and state in the annual report, the unit cost of new construction;
  Carry out up to five post-scheme evaluations as agreed with the central Department;
  Maintain the trunk road network effectively by planning a programme of capital maintenance to ensure that the target of reducing the percentage of the road network past the critical condition to 7 to 8 per cent. by the year 2000 is achieved and that all bridges on the network are able to carry the full assessment loading for vehicles of 40 tonne maximum gross vehicle weight by the end of 1998, by (in 1994–95): reconstructing 137 nearside lane kilometres (nlks) of trunk road and 40 nlks of motorway; overlaying a further 394 nlks of trunk road and 227 nlks of motorway; assessing the structural capacity of 795 bridges and strengthening 177 bridges; and monitoring, and stating in the annual report, the unit cost of road maintenance;
  Contribute to the Government's target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000, compared to the annual average for 1981–85;
  Publish, as part of the agency's annual report, a section reporting its activities to promote road safety, including the accident rate on motorways and trunk roads;
  Publish as part of the agency's annual report a report on environmental matters; and
  Produce certified appropriation accounts by August 1995, and unaudited financial statements in an annual report by October 1995.
  The key targets for the Marine Safety Agency are to:
  Complete by 30 November the calculations for the phase-in criteria for ro ro passenger ferries built before 1990 and implement the first stage of the North West European ro ro passenger stability agreement and the related United Kingdom regulations by 30 November 1994;
  Submit to me an interim report by 31 October 1994 reviewing the fishing vessel safety provisions legislation including the progress made, in consultation with the industry, towards a fishing vessel safety code of practice for vessels under 12 metres in length;
  Complete by 31 March 1995 technical negotiations within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to secure amendments to chapter one (general provisions) and for the introduction of mandatory ships' routing and reporting under chapter V (safety of navigation) of the safety of life at sea

  383
  convention, including the drafting of any statutory instruments to give effect to the adopted amendments in United Kingdom law;
  Provide technical input to the European Community (EC) negotiations on the proposed directives dealing with convergent application of IMO rules and resolutions and specifically on segregated ballast tanks, ship safety equipment, transit and access in EC waters, and standards for vessels not covered by the safety of life at sea convention;
  Establish by 31 March 1995 mechanisms to allow the delegation of further survey and certification work to the private sector and the arrangements for its audit; and to audit by 31 March 1995 two organisations already authorised to undertake survey and certification work;
  Undertake port state control inspections, including operational aspects, of 30 per cent. of the foreign flagged vessels using United Kingdom ports;
  Achieve a running-costs efficiency gain of 3 per cent.; and
  As part of a two year programme of deregulation, produce proposals by 31 December 1994 for a first round of revocations of regulations.
  The key targets for the Transport Research Laboratory are to:
  Cover full costs with income from customers while meeting the net control total in the 1994–95 Supply Estimates;
  Ensure direct fee-earning costs as a percentage of total operating costs are greater than 57 per cent.;
  Achieve average staff utilisation in research resource centres of at least 1300 hours per year on direct fee-earning work; and
  Ensure that at least 94 per cent. of completed projects assessed by customers are rated as satisfactory or better
  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are to:
  Issue 90 per cent. of whole vehicle and system and component certificates by dates agreed with customers;
  Ensure that at least 98 per cent. of certificates issued are free of errors caused by the agency and where errors do occur to issue corrected documents within three working days in 75 per cent. of cases;
  Audit at least 50 per cent. of the agency's approved quality procedures and to achieve a satisfactory appraisal report on technical performance from my Department's chief mechanical engineer;
  Achieve, or better, a net output unit cost of £71·29;
  Achieve a Treasury accounts direction for the agency's 1994–95 accounts;
  Implement a new data system for job and product line costing;
  Deliver legislation, enforcement and information programmes required by the Department to timetables and within budget; and
  Develop a model contract for the provision of testing services by agents and to begin a trial of that contract with at least one agent.
  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate trading fund are to:
  Achieve an efficiency improvement of 5 per cent. as measured by the agency's aggregate cost efficiency index;
  Break even while achieving a 6 per cent. real rate of return on capital employed;
  Achieve an HGV/PSV test exemption rate of less than 0·01 per cent.;
  Achieve an HGV/PSV test error rate of less than 0·47 per cent.;
  Achieve a roadworthiness prohibition error rate of 0·5 per cent.;
  Return 95 per cent. of maintenance assessments for "O" licence renewals and variations within six weeks and 99 per cent. within 12 weeks;
  Decide 99 per cent. of all MOT statutory appeals against refusal to issue test certificates within five working days;
  Produce 95 per cent. of Traffic Commissioners reports within four weeks unless another deadline has been agreed, and to produce 95 per cent. within the agreed deadline;
  Examine a minimum of 1·4 million HGV and 145,000 PSV tachograph charts;
  Weigh a minimum of 115,000 goods vehicles; and
  384
  Have at least 90 per cent. of weighbridge equipment available nationally.
  With regard to key targets for the Driving Standards Agency, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave on 12 April 1994 at column 83.

  These targets are set out in the agencies' business plans which also include management objectives and performance indicators, where appropriate to the agencies' business. Copies of the business plans of the Coastguard Agency, Highways Agency, Marine Safety Agency and Vehicle Certification Agency have been placed in the Library of the House. The business plans of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the vehicle inspectorate will be placed in the Library shortly. The business plan of the Transport Research Laboratory is commercially confidential.

  Metropolitan Traffic Area Office
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which month and year the Metropolitan traffic area office moved to Charles house, London; and in which month and year it closed.

  Mr. Key
  The Metropolitan traffic area office moved from Bromyard avenue to Charles house between July and September 1988. The Metropolitan traffic area office in Charles house was closed in May 1991 as part of the restructuring of the traffic areas.

  Tunnel House, Clayton
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with British Rail about preserving the 1836 Tunnel house at Clayton built over the London-Brighton line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, the future of the Clayton Tunnel house is a matter for Railtrack. I understand however, that Railtrack is currently assessing what repairs if any are required to this grade II listed building.

  BR Land (Trepass)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases in respect of trespass and endangering safety of persons on railway lines were brought by the British Transport police and the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Trespass

  Endanger safety

  1991

  4,149

  386

  1992

  5,150

  344

  1993

  7,010

  543

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of hunts trespassing on British Rail property were recorded in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c)

  Mr. Freeman
  There were three recorded incidents of hunts trespassing on British Rail property in 1991, 10 in 1992 and 11 in 1993.
  385
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department issues to British Rail regarding trespass on BR property.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not issue advice to BR or Railtrack regarding trespass on their property.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Tranpsort, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 97, how much was spent in the financial year 1993–94 on publishing the traffic area office annual report and the traffic area office customer service guides; and what are the costs of the customer service guides as a percentage of the running costs of traffic area co-ordination division and the traffic area office network.

  Mr. Key
  The cost of publishing the traffic area annual report and the customer service guides during the financial year 1993–94 was £3,500. The costs of the customer service guides represented less than 0·5 per cent. of running costs of traffic area co-ordination division and the traffic area office network.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 28 February,Official Report, column 563, what plans he has to make available information about how to complain about goods or public service vehicles at places other than traffic area offices; and what plans he has to publicise the existence of traffic area offices.

  Mr. Key
  Complaints about goods vehicles and public service vehicles may be addressed to a number or organisations depending on the nature of the complaint. The two main organisations within my Department are the Vehicle Inspectorate and the local traffic area office. Both these organisations have published or are about to publish codes of practice which will explain how to make complaints.

  The code of practice for traffic area offices which came into effect on 1 April 1994 explains the operator licensing and bus registration services they provide their customers. This code will shortly be printed in leaflet form for general distribution and will include a map showing the eight traffic area offices, their areas of responsibility, addresses and telephone numbers. A press notice will be issued to publicise the leaflet.

  Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 27, for what reasons he does not collect figures for the number of objections received in the renewal of goods vehicle operator licences.

  Mr. Key
  The Department collects figures for the number of objections to all types of applications and these are held on computer. It would be possible to collate the information for the number of objections to renewals of goods vehicle operator licences received but for 1991–92 and 1992–93 that could be done only at disproportionate cost. This is because a special computer programme would be needed to extract the necessary information.

  "Guide to Making Representations"
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which month and year the last two editions of his "Guide to Making Representations" were printed.

  Mr. Key
  The goods vehicle operator licensing "Guide to Making Representations" was first published in October 1986. A revised edition of the guide was published in October 1992.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure that his target of at least 51 per cent. of British Rail being privatised by April 1996 is met; what assurances he has received from the Franchising Director that this target will be met; and what penalties and measures are available to him to take action it the target is not met.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State has set for the Franchising Director the targets of commencing the competitive process for the first six franchises by the end of 1994, awarding the first six franchises by the end of 1995, and securing that 51 per cent. or more of the railway passenger services currently operated by BR are provided under franchise agreements by 1 April 1996. It will be for the Franchising Director to achieve these targets, and the franchising programme he announced on 21 April indicates how he intends to do so. We have no reason to believe that these targets will not be met. Should a problem arise which would result in the targets not being met we would need to consider with the Franchising Director what action would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case.

  Prohibition Notices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 389, if he will provide a breakdown of the reasons for the issue of immediate prohibitions against passenger-carrying vehicles in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be produced at only disproportionate cost. However, an analysis of all prohibitions by defect type is available for 1992–93 and is as follows.

  Defect

  Number of times occurred

  Seat belts

  0

  Diesel smoke emission

  259

  Road wheels and hubs

  67

  Size and type of tyres

  3

  Condition of tyres

  150

  Bumper bars

  3

  Spare wheel/carrier

  6

  Vehicle/trailer coupling

  0

  Coupling on trailer

  1

  Trailer landing legs

  3

  Wings and wheel arches

  3

  Cab security

  0

  Passenger doors, drivers doors and emergency exits

  255

  Drivers accommodation

  16

  Driving seat

  13

  Security of body

  17

  Exterior of body, including access doors/luggage flaps

  139

  Interior of body, passenger entrance, exit steps and platforms

  321

  387

  Defect

  Number of times occurred

  Mirrors

  2

  View to the front

  6

  Condition of windows, glass or other transparent material

  38

  Windscreen wipers and washers

  50

  Speedometer

  1

  Audible warning (horn)

  5

  Driving controls

  70

  Tachograph

  3

  Play at steering wheel

  8

  Steering wheel

  5

  Steering column

  6

  Speed limiter

  0

  Pressure/vacuum Warning

  4

  Build Up of Pressure Vacuum

  15

  Hand Lever Operating Mechanical Brakes

  20

  Service Brake Pedal

  4

  Service Brake Operation

  6

  Hand Operated Brake Control Valves

  5

  Condition of Chassis

  40

  Electrical Wiring and Equipment

  48

  Engine and Transmission Mountings

  15

  Oil and Waste Leaks

  325

  Fuel Tanks and Systems

  275

  Exhaust and Waste Systems

  112

  Suspension Pins and Bushes

  71

  Suspension Spring Units and Linkages

  145

  Attachment of Spring Units, Linkages and Sub-Frame

  90

  Shock Absorbers

  27

  Axles, Stub Axles and Wheel Bearings

  16

  Steering Linkage

  112

  Steering Gear

  29

  Power Steering

  71

  Transmission

  57

  Additional Braking Devices

  1

  Mechanical Brake Components

  58

  Brake Actuators

  54

  Braking Systems and Components

  220

  Rear Markings

  1

  Front Position of Front End Outline Marker

  24

  Rear Position, Rear End Outline Marker, Rear Fog and Rear Registration Lamps

  15

  Reflectors

  3

  Direction Indicators and Hazard Warning Lamps

  44

  Aim of Headlamps

  23

  Headlamps

  50

  Stop Lamps

  55

  Trailer Parking Brake

  0

  Service Brake Performance

  94

  Secondary Brake Performance

  52

  Parking Brake Performance

  104

  Addition Brakes Performance

  2

  Annual Team Item

  1

  Other

  19

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons are employed by(a) the British Railways Board, (b) the regulator, (c) the Franchising Director, (d) Railtrack and (e) train operating companies on salaries in excess of £30,000 per annum.

  Mr. Freeman
  BR employs 1,228 staff with salaries in excess of £30,000 per annum: the regulator, 17; the Franchising Director, 17; and Railtrack, 349. Staff employed in the train operating units are still employees of BR and are included in BR's total.

  Red Warning Vehicles Scheme
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what increase in the licensing of vehicles there has been resulting from the national red warning vehicles scheme launched by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in 1993.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The windscreen warning notice scheme started as a pilot in 1992 and was extended throughout England and Wales early in 1993.

  We estimate that in 1991–92, before the start of the scheme, some 115,000 evaders or would-be evaders were encouraged to relicense their vehicles as a direct result of vehicle excise duty enforcement activity, realising some £8·4 million in revenue that would otherwise not have been collected. In 1993–94, with the scheme in full operation, an estimated 345,000 motorists were encouraged to relicense, with a revenue recovery of some £27·9 million.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Press Releases
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) of 18 April,Official Report, column 365, if he will ensure that all Government news releases are transmitted electronically to POLIS at the same time as they are placed in the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Distribution of news releases is a matter for individual Departments.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of the Regular Reserves in 1993 (a) responded to questions as to their suitability for military service and (b) provided full details as to their medical conditions;

  (2) how frequently the information which is held centrally by each service on the suitability for military service of members of the Regular reserve is (a) updated and (b) verified with individual reservists.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the suitability for military service of members of the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Regular Army Reserve is provided by personnel completing an annual questionnaire, which includes a section on the individual's medical condition. The Royal Navy introduced a postal reporting system in July 1993 and in the first six months some 1,300 members of the Royal Fleet Reserve were contacted, of whom approximately 50 per cent. replied. The Army's Regular Reserve use a similar system, and at the end of 1993 about 55 per cent. of those contacted had responded.

  The Royal Air Force system requires the reservist to inform his management centre only when his or her circumstances change. In 1993, less than 1 per cent. of the reserve strength did so.
  389
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the respective roles of the Army Reserve, Army service pensioners with recall liability and the Army's Long-term Reserve.

  Mr. Hanley
  Ex-Regular Army reservists can be used in the following roles regardless of the category of reserve to which they belong:

  a. To provide reinforcements to bring regular and TA units and headquarters up to their war establishment.

  b. To provide Battle Casuality Replacements.

  c. To form sub-units for Home Defence tasks.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service pensioners have a recall liability.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of service pensioners excluding officers who had a recall liability at 31 March 1994 are as follows rounded to the nearest 100:

  Number

  Royal Navy:

  11,300

  Royal Marines:

  1,000

  Army:

  32,900

  Royal Air Force:

  21,900

  The liability of ex-Regular officers for recall is not dependent on receipt of a pension, and information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions, and in what numbers, men of the Army Reserve have been called out for training over the past five years(a) for a period not exceeding 15 days and (b) for a period not exceeding 36 hours.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number called out once annually for training since 1989 are as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  54,719

  1990–91

  53,559

  1991–92

  47,278

  1992–93

  Nil

  1993–94

  Nil

  On all of these occasions the training period did not exceed 36 hours.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the sequence of call-out of all components of the Army Reserves under section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 when it appears to Her Majesty's Government that national danger is imminent or a great emergency has arisen.

  Mr. Hanley
  Section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 applies directly to the Territorial Army and Army Reserve. There is no restriction on the order in which they or any other Army reservists are called out.

  The Act also provides that when members of the Army Reserve are called out for permanent service under section 10, Army pensioners may be recalled under section 32(1) and men of the Army Long-term Reserve may be recalled for service under section 34(1).

  Call-out of members of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers—RARO—is governed by the Pay Warrant 1964,
  390
  article 285. It provides that class I of RARO, which includes most ex-Regular officers, may be called-out if the call-out of Army reservists has been ordered when national danger is imminent or a great emergency has arisen.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria were used, and what specialist training was required, in respect of those members of the Regular Reserve called out during the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Hanley
  Regular Reserves were called out during the Gulf conflict to fill specific posts. The selection process was designed to identify individuals who, because of their experience and qualifications, needed only the minimum of training to achieve operational readiness in those posts.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Territorial Army units are between two thirds and 80 per cent. recruited.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 1 April 1994 there were 10 Territorial Army units between two-thirds and 80 per cent. recruited. They are as follows:

  Unit

  District

  Per cent.

  102 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Eastern District

  67

  77 Engineer Regiment

  Eastern District

  73

  Scots Yeomanry

  Scotland

  67

  32 Signal Regiment

  Scotland

  77

  205 Field Hospital

  Scotland

  68

  2 Wessex

  Southern District

  80

  103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Southern District

  72

  203 Field Hospital

  Wales and Western District

  74

  31 Signal Regiment

  London

  75

  257 Field Hospital

  London

  70

  Imphal Barracks
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vacant office space there will be at Imphal barracks, York, once the pay and manning function has completed its relocation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The move of the Infantry and Royal Artillery manning and record offices and the regional pay office will release approximately 32,895 sq ft of office space at Imphal barracks.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of maintaining the office buildings at Imphal barracks during 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated cost of maintaining the office buildings at Imphal barracks for financial year 1994–95 is £40,000.

  Officer Training Corps
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the established strength and the actual strength as at 1 January of the Officer Training Corps.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 1 January 1994 the established strength of the Officer Training Corps was 4,884 and the actual strength was 5,579. The higher number in actual strength results from permitted overbearing during the
  391
  recruitment process between October and April of each year. Numbers are planned to reduce to the established strength by 1 April each year.

  Air Vice Marshal Colville
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the salary and financial value of other benefits paid to Air Vice Marshal Colville as Air Officer Commanding as at 31 March; and what will be his payments from 1 April as chief executive of the Training Group Defence Agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  The rate of salary and range of allowances to which Air Vice Marshal Colville is entitled as a two-star officer filling a command appointment are unaffected by his appointment as chief executive of the Training Group Defence Agency.

  The salary of two-star officers on 31 March 1994 was £56,710·05. On 1 April 1994, it was increased to £59,794·30 on payment of the 1994–95 pay award and the final stage of the 1992 pay award for senior military personnel.

  In respect of his current appointment, Air Vice Marshal Colville is entitled to an entertainment allowance of £8·73 per day. In common with all service personnel, he is entitled to claim various allowances appropriate to his domestic and personal circumstances.

  Economic planning region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South East

  57,798·5

  58,339·5

  57,007·0

  55,230·0

  46,836·0

  East Anglia

  2,552·5

  2,506·5

  2,537·0

  2,694·0

  2,667·5

  South West

  30,019·0

  29,939·0

  29,756·5

  28,882·5

  28,398·0

  West Midlands

  8,762·5

  8,775·5

  8,820·0

  8,721·0

  8,510·0

  East Midlands

  3,470·5

  3,407·0

  3,658·5

  3,753·0

  3,831·5

  Yorks and Humberside

  5,850·0

  5,889·0

  5,685·0

  5,397·5

  5,167·5

  NorthWest

  2,949·5

  2,974·0

  2,967·0

  2,858·0

  2,729·5

  Northern

  3,107·0

  3,081·0

  3,038·5

  2,929·0

  2,727·0

  Wales

  5,566·5

  5,530·5

  5,490·0

  5,436·0

  5,026·0

  Scotland

  12,314·5

  12,151·5

  11,984·0

  11,735·0

  11,624·0

  Northern Ireland

  2,688·5

  2,646·5

  2,632·5

  2,782·0

  2,933·0

  Elsewhere in United Kingdom

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  2·0

  0·0

  Total United Kingdom

  135,082

  134,243

  133,579

  130,420

  120,450

  Ammunition
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 501, what was the total cost of (a) the L15 rounds and (b) the M107 rounds referred to and the present item cost of each round.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost of the F15 rounds was about £55,000,000 and that of the M107 rounds about £70,000,000. It is not the practice of my Department to disclose current prices as they are commercially confidential.

  Clothing and Textiles Directorate
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take into account when determining the location of the clothing and textiles directorate the loss of civilian jobs in York and surrounding areas caused by the relocation of Ministry of Defence functions.

  Mr. Hanley
  Full account is being taken of civilian job losses at all Ministry of Defence establishments where the reduction of a task or a closure has given rise to surplus accommodation which could be considered for an alternative defence requirement. This includes the sites at Imphal barracks and Strensall barracks in York and MOD sites in Harrogate.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the criteria being applied by consultants in identifying a suitable site for the clothing and textiles directorate.

  Mr. Hanley
  The criteria being applied to identify a site or sites for the directorate of clothing and textiles authority are that it should be located to the best advantage to the authority while offering the best value for money.

  Civilian Employees
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by region the number of Ministry of Defence civilian employees in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Civilian employees include scientists, engineers, security and medical staff and many other disciplines, as well as administrators. The overall numbers are as follows:

  PINDAR Bunker
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many crisis and contingency plans exist for the use of PINDAR bunker; what is the staffing level for each of these; how many exercises have so far been held in the PINDAR bunker; and how many are planned;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the role and function of the PINDAR bunker; and when PINDAR was first declared to have its full operational capability;

  (3) which categories of persons have spaces allocated for them in PINDAR; and how many spaces are allocated in the PINDAR bunker for each job function.

  Mr. Hanley
  The purpose of the PINDAR joint operations centre is to provide the Government with a protected crisis management facility. It became operational on 7 December 1992. A number of crisis and contingency
  393
  plans exist for the use of PINDAR and the centre is manned by a permanent staff, which is augmented as necessary in times of crisis. There are a number of categories of personnel allocated space in PINDAR, including Ministers, senior military and civilian personnel, plus service and civilian operational and support staff. It would not be appropriate to give any more detailed information than this as it would relate to operational capability.

  There have been two major exercises and a number of small ones held there to date, and it is planned to hold one major and a varying number of minor exercises each year.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many toilet(a) cubicles and (b) urinals are installed in the PINDAR bunker; and how long the toilet facilities in the PINDAR bunker are planned to last if it was sealed from the outside world.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are sufficient toilet facilities provided for the full complement of the site. These facilities are usable as long as power within the site is maintained for pumping waste.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions have been made for the occupants to escape the PINDAR bunker in the event that the building above it has collapsed on top of it.

  Mr. Hanley
  A variety of routes exist which would enable the occupants to escape from the facility in the event that the building above it had collapsed.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the location of the PINDAR bunker; how many square metres of space it comprises; and on how many levels.

  Mr. Hanley
  The PINDAR facility is located beneath the Ministry of Defence main building in Whitehall. Details of its size and layout are of an operational nature and it is not our practice to reveal such information.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place plans of the PINDAR bunker in the Library;

  (2) at what depth below the surface is (a) the highest and (b) the lowest level of the PINDAR bunker.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to reveal information of this kind as it relates to operational capability.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) lifts and (b) staircases connect the PINDAR bunker with the surface level; and what transport systems connect the PINDAR bunker to other sites.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are sufficient means of access and egress from the PINDAR facility.

  The facility is not connected to any transport system.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the PINDAR bunker from conception to operational status; and from which subheads of which votes the funds for PINDAR were taken.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost of the PINDAR facility has been £126,300,000 of which £66,300,000 was spent on the civil works programme. All costs since 1989 have been charged against vote subheads 2L2 and 2M5. Prior to this date civil works costs were charged against vote 4.
  394
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many beds are contained in the PINDAR bunker.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are sufficient bunks within the PINDAR facility for the full complement when working a three-shift system.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the catering facilities in the PINDAR bunker are planned to last if sealed from the outside world.

  Mr. Hanley
  Catering facilities within the PINDAR facility are designed to support operations for as long as is considered operationally necessary.

  Diver Mist
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about Exercise Diver Mist;

  (2) which parts of the final exercise evaluation report of Exercise Diver Mist will be made public.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 25 April,Official Report, columns 84–85.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total financial cost to Her Majesty's Government of Exercise Diver Mist; and from which subheads of which votes these costs were taken.

  Mr. Hanley
  The costs attributable to exercise Diver Mist are not separately identified within departmental budgets and the information requested could therefore only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) British and (b) United States personnel were involved in Exercise Diver Mist.

  Mr. Hanley
  Approximately 700 British and 800 United States personnel were involved in Exercise Diver Mist at the site at Barnham in Suffolk.

  Costs Study
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the defence costs study; when the defence costs study started; and when it is expected to be completed.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 7 December 1993 at column 176. The defence costs study was formally launched on 1 December 1993. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement about its outcome before the summer recess.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 348, which of the reports from the defence costs study he has received are final reports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Ministers have now seen final reports from 31 of the 33 individual defence costs studies.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 337, which of the defence costs study team are producing reports which will be relevant to decisions relating to spares; and if he will make a statement.
  395
  Mr. Hanley
  One of the defence costs study teams was specifically concerned with the examination of repair, spares, storage and distribution within the MOD services. A number of other defence costs study teams scrutinised areas of support activity in which the storage, handling and use of spares play a part.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all of the non-MOD organisations and individuals that have been consulted in the course of the defence costs study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Defence costs study teams were encouraged to consult widely, but a record of all the organisations and individuals consulted is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the non-civil service participants in the defence costs study; and under what scale of remuneration the non-civil service participants in the defence costs study are being paid.

  Mr. Hanley
  Non-civil service participants in the defence costs study have included Ministers, service personnel and a number of consultants and advisers from outside MOD. External participation has taken a variety of forms. The following individuals have participated as external members of study teams:

  Sir R. Barratt

  Mr. R. Benton

  Sir J. Blelloch

  Lieutenant General (Rtd.) Sir D. Boorman

  Mr. C. Brendish

  Mr. M. Dow

  Mr. D. Dugdale

  Professor M. Earl

  Mr. F. Everard

  Mr. B. Greedy

  Mr. N. Hale

  Mr. D. Hart

  Mr. B. King

  Mr. C. Littmoden

  Mr. A. Mallin

  Mr. I. McNeil

  Mr. J. Montgomery

  Mr. I. Robertson

  Professor I. Shanks

  Mr. K. Simpson

  Major General (Rtd.) G. Sinclair

  A team from Price Waterhouse, which was already providing consultancy advice in a related area, also participated in one of the studies.

  Not all those listed are receiving payment for their services. Remuneration arrangements for individuals acting as external advisers or consultants are matters of confidence between the Department and the persons concerned.

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the pay rises for senior defence officers arising from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's recommendations.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommended in February an increase of 4·4 per cent. for brigadiers and equivalents—the most senior rank on whose pay it makes recommendations. The Government accepted this recommendation in full but, in line with all other 396
  service ranks whose pay is recommended by the AFPRB, the award for brigadiers and equivalents was staged. The first 2·7 per cent. of the award will be paid from 1 April 1994 with the balance being paid from 1 January 1995.

  Officers on whose pay the Government receive recommendations from the Senior Salaries Review Body will receive an increase of 2·75 per cent. from 1 April 1994, together with the third stage of their 1992 award. Additionally, the Government are considering a recommendation by the SSRB that a differential of 10 per cent. should be established between the pay of brigadiers and equivalents and major generals and equivalents.

  Underground Property
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the bunkers and other underground property owned, operated or leased by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent Greek military leaders are party to any NATO decisions on action on Bosnia; and what assessment he has made as to the security considerations of this involvement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Greece is a full party to all NATO decisions on Bosnia.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy on nuclear testing.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 22 March,Official Report, column 139.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deal with the backlog of claims for war disablement pensions following the closure of the Ministry of Defence records centre at Hayes.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) on 21 April,Official Report, column 624.

  Greek War Medals
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of those ex-soldiers who are entitled to accept the Greek War Medal and the War Star from the Greek Government for their part in the 1940–41 campaign.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Front Line Capabilities
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent to which decisions emerging from the defence costs study will have an effect upon front-line capabilities.
  397
  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not yet taken any decisions on the defence costs study. Furthermore, no decisions will be taken on the recommendations arising from this work which will reduce our operational capability.

  Estimates Statement
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the mistakes and misprints that have been made in the 1994 "Statement on the Defence Estimates"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  As far as I am aware, the only misprint of any material nature is in annex E. The upper part of the bar for the USA should be shaded blue to denote nuclear-powered submarines rather than yellow.

  "Soldier" Magazine
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information the new parliamentary column in "Soldier" magazine will include; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The parliamentary column, which was introduced in the 7 March 1994 issue of "Soldier" magazine, contains a brief digest of Defence matters, published in Hansard, which "Soldier's" editor considers will be of interest to his readership. The column will reflect information which affects Army personnel, their dependants, and the ex-service community.

  Capital Works
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 86, if he will give details of the design developments for the Minley/Chatham, Dishforth and Tidworth capital works projects.

  Mr. Hanley
  An element of refinement will nearly always occur between the inception of a project and its final completion, largely as a result of detailed work by professional design staff. There were, however, no significant changes to the original scope of work envisaged to meet the requirements of the three projects in question. The main reason for the reductions in costs was due to the competitive market conditions prevailing at the time.

  Homosexuality Regulations
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 711, what effect the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, if enacted, would have on the new homosexuality regulations.

  Mr. Hanley
  The provisions of the new tri-service guidelines on homosexuality are consistent with the current provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Great Barr School, Birmingham
Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what date the case of Great Barr School, Birmingham, was referred to the National Assets Board and on what date did the board refer the matter to the Secretary of State in order to determine the ownership of facilities specifically povided for community use as well as school use; why no decision has yet been reached in this matter; and whether they will give an assurance that all such facilities will continue to remain in the control of the local authorities which provided them.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Education Assets Board first became involved in this matter when the school became grant maintained in April 1991. The board was unable to reach agreement with Birmingham LEA over the ownership of these facilities used jointly by the school and community and referred the matter to the Department for Education in August 1992 for determination. Since then the department has been seeking to put my right honourable friend the Secretary of State into a position to resolve this complex case. Whatever the outcome, continued use of the facilities by the school and community will be protected, as it has been throughout.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. First of all, does he agree with me that it is totally unacceptable to this House, or indeed to those in the field of education, that a matter requiring resolve and which has been referred to the appropriate body has still not been resolved three years later? This is bureaucracy gone mad. Secondly, I acknowledge that progress has been made on the general front by the issuing by the Government of Circular 15/93 which I and most local authorities appreciate, but we are still left with the fact that a local authority has spent £1 million on providing sports facilities for the use both of the community and the school and the school is trying to take the ownership of those facilities. That is unacceptable. Will the noble Viscount kindly represent to his noble friend, when she decides this matter, that the recommendation of the assets board about security for the school in maintaining the national curriculum in PE is not a valid argument as the school has four other gymnasiums which it can use and most other schools which have the same obligation to provide PE have no sports halls at all? Therefore the logic of that recommendation seems to me totally uncertain.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch is also concerned at the length of time these
920
matters have remained unresolved. My noble friend will use her best endeavours to bring them to a conclusion. As regards the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the points that he raised on financial implications will of course be taken into account by my right honourable friend when he produces his conclusion.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government, in general policy, see the value of school facilities being at the disposal of the community as a whole; that this is a good use of facilities and public money; and that it is also a good way of enabling youngsters in their formative years to relate to the community of which they are a part?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I agree entirely with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

Rwanda: UN Peacekeeping Operations
11.11 a.m.
Lord Bonham-Carterasked her Majesty's. Government:
What action they propose to take, in co-operation with other Security Council members, to protect. those at risk, including local staff employed by United Kingdom-based non-governmental organisations in Rwanda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the United Nations Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) is working for a cease-fire. It has also been tasked by the Security Council to assist in the resumption of humanitarian relief operations and monitor and report on developments. We are actively encouraging all international efforts, including those by the OAU and regional governments, to halt the killings.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the Minister share my concern that in the face of massive slaughter, bigger than in Bosnia, bigger than in Somalia, and bigger probably than anywhere else in the world, the UN Security Council decided to reduce its forces in Rwanda and, as it were, to opt out of this operation de facto?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do accept what the noble Lord said about the massive slaughter in Rwanda. It is difficult to know quite how bad it is but: we have heard of reports of between 100,000 and 200,000 dead. I can tell the noble Lord that the decision to reduce the force level was taken only after the most careful consideration of all the options and on the advice of the United Nations Commander, Major-General Dalliere, and it is merely a reduction in the force level and riot a United Nations withdrawal from Rwanda. We believe that the main task in Rwanda and the most important way of bringing relief to all those concerned is obviously to broker a cease-fire so that the humanitarian operation can begin again and get the Arusha peace agreement back on track.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the UN personnel who have been in Rwanda are there basically to keep the peace and it is absolutely impossible in the present situation? I think that we have to accept that they are not in a position to have their own lives defended in this difficult situation. We certainly ought to thank those who are there at the moment doing an extremely difficult job.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend has made the very point that the United Nations Commander in Rwanda made. Very often the more soldiers one has out there the greater the problem in that one ends up having to protect those who are already there. As I made quite clear, the United Nations' decision to reduce force levels was taken only after the most careful consideration. It is not a withdrawal from Rwanda, it is merely a reduction in the force level.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that NGOs in general have proved to be excellent voluntary organisations and have given good service to democracy everywhere? Will he therefore consider making very strong representations to the United Nations on behalf of NGOs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only endorse what the noble Lord said. I understand from a press report today, which I am very pleased to repeat, that the Italian Red Cross has been able to evacuate 40 children from an orphanage in Rwanda.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that General Dalliere did not have the forces to cope with the massive armed attacks by one ethnic group on another and the conflict between the RPF and the Government of Rwanda, was consideration given to the alternative of asking the OAU, for example, to reinforce General Dalliere's troops so that instead of a peacekeeping operation a peacemaking operation could have been embarked on at short notice?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only repeat that all matters were carefully considered by the United Nations. Peacemaking is a very different activity from peacekeeping and is rather harder to do than some pundits would suggest. As I made clear earlier, maintaining large numbers of troops in Rwanda in itself could create more problems than it might solve. I return to what I said before. The decision to reduce force levels in Rwanda was taken only after the most careful consideration.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we may be facing genocide on a scale that the world has not seen since Cambodia in the 1970s, and if that is the case we should be mobilising all possible material, military and financial support to enable the Secretary General to take serious peace enforcement action? Does the Minister agree—I am sure that he does—that the whole story underlines a crazy set of priorities in the world at the moment when more than £400 billion was still being spent on arms in 1993 while only £2.25 billion could be found for peacekeeping? Will the
922
Government accept that they will have the fullest possible support from this side of the House if they take consistent action to reverse those nonsensical priorities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is going slightly wide of the original Question about our policy in Rwanda. I repeat to the noble Lord that we are obviously deeply concerned about what is going on. The number of deaths there is horrendous, whatever figure one takes. The noble Lord tried to draw a comparison between what we are doing in Rwanda and what is happening in Bosnia and elsewhere. It is probably best if I merely repeat what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place two or three days ago. He said:
"We do not have a new world order. We have a traditional set of world disorders and we are trying, case by case and institution by institution, to equip ourselves to deal more adequately with those disorders. Each one is different, and the effort that the outside world can make to help solve each one will differ also". —[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/94; col. 26.]
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the Minister said that the options had been considered with the utmost care. Is he aware that some of those most closely concerned, including the President of Uganda, President Museveni, took an exactly opposite view and advocated very strongly reinforcement rather than withdrawal?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are frequently differing views on different sides. That is why matters have to be considered with great care and that is why the United Nations Security Council did consider these matters with great care and came to the conclusion that it did.

Council Tax: Adjustment Notices
11.18 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that some local authorities which at the beginning of the current financial year had received payment in full of their demands for council tax have now issued adjustment notices demanding additional council tax for the current year and whether such additional demands are lawful or enforceable.
Lord Henley: My Lords, liability to council tax can often change after the demand notice has been issued; for example, when a single person discount is awarded part way through the year. If liability changes, an authority must adjust the Bill and either refund or credit the account or request an additional payment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when someone has paid an account for the year in full is it not a little odd that the taxing authority should then come along later and ask for more? Can my noble friend cite any other form of taxation under which the taxing authority enjoys this, no doubt to it agreeable, facility?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not consider it odd at all. If one takes the example that I gave of someone who becomes a single person during the year, having

923
previously been married, in that case he or she would be entitled to a refund. If a single person becomes a married person during the year obviously his circumstances have changed. It is made quite clear on the original Bill, with which explanatory notes are provided, that if circumstances change there will be increased liability. I see nothing odd about that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his answer will drive even more people to think that in moving from the community charge to the council tax we settle for the second best?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, has the noble Lord had the opportunity to reconsider his somewhat miserly Answer given yesterday, refusing to countenance the payment of interest on funds returned after successful council tax appeals? Is he aware that the Inland Revenue demand interest on unpaid sums just 30 days after the issue of a demand? Community charge appeals are now outstanding for more than a year. Surely interest should be paid.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will be aware—I am open to correction; I speak only from memory—that the Inland Revenue does not demand interest until that interest bill is over about £30. In other words, it applies something of a de minimis rule. If we are talking about a reduction of one band—that is what it is likely to be if someone appeals and their band is reduced by one band—we are talking of a reduction in their bill, on average, of something of the order of £60. I really do think that the interest for six months or longer on a sum of £60 is not something that is within the realms of practicality. I have to say to the noble Lord that I do not intend to reconsider my Answer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend look further into the answer given to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? His answer seemed to be that if the circumstances of the council tax payer changed it was a rebate issue; whereas I thought that the Question tabled by the noble Lord asked whether or not the council could alter the whole council tax assessment for everyone after a period of time. I had thought that that was not possible. Can the noble Lord confirm my understanding?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I understood it, the Question related to changes of circumstances. Where circumstances change, obviously it is open to the authority to adjust the bill up or down. I am not aware that it is possible, except in particular cases, for the authority actually to change the bill for the entire community which it serves. I shall have to take advice on that.

Bullying in Schools
11.22 a.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to resolve the problem of bullying in schools.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government are naturally extremely concerned at any occurrences of bullying. Available statistics suggest that there is a significant problem. A survey undertaken in Sheffield in late 1990 suggested that a quarter of primary pupils and one in 10 of secondary pupils had experienced bullying. The Government are determined to help schools to tackle the problem. Action Against Bullying guidance was issued to all schools in England in July 1992. New advice leaflets for pupils and parents have recently been prepared by the Department for Education. Further guidance for schools in England based on government-funded research at Sheffield University will shortly be available.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I welcome that response. Is the Minister aware that when Childline and the BBC established a special bullying line, a staggering 18,995 calls were made. Many parents were desperate because they could not get schools to investigate complaints about bullying. Will the Government support a change in the Parent's Charter which guarantees that after complaints of bullying schools investigate the complaints and take any necessary action?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the department is aware of programmes, and comments in the newspapers, on statistics on bullying. I shall certainly bring the second part of the noble Lord's question to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not incumbent on all schools, by government circulars through local authorities, and, in the case of grant-maintained schools, directly, to have a policy on bullying? If I am wrong, is it not about time that there was a policy on the subject of bullying for every school?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my right honourable friend has asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to ensure that inspection teams look at the action that schools take to prevent and eliminate bullying. Inspectors will seek the views of pupils, parents and teachers on the incidence of bullying and the schools' response.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister say whether any study on bullying is taking place in the public school sector as well as in the state sector?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am not aware of any such studies.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not the case that bullying is a social ill which is not confined to education? It appears in the penal system, in the Armed

925
Forces, and, if I may say so following an interjection from my left, sometimes in Parliament, probably not in this House and certainly not by Whips on these Benches.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I do not think that the Department for Education has any responsibility for bullying in your Lordships' House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether in the so-called public schools or in the state schools one way to reduce bullying is to appoint responsible senior pupils as prefects and to give them the responsibility of detecting bullying and reporting it to the head teacher?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I call my noble friend's attention to the bulletin published by the Department for Education entitled Action Against Bullying, copies of which are in your Lordships' Library.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that on this side of the House we regard this subject, as do the Government, as a very serious issue? It is not simply the bullying but the evidence that many sensitive youngsters of real ability do not fulfil their potential or complete their studies because of experiences of bullying at a young and tender age. That is potentially a national disaster. Firm action must be taken. Do the Government accept that in taking firm action the general context of values in society as a point of reference is crucial. If we are building a caring, responsible society with an emphasis on community responsibility, it is a good point of reference from which to deal firmly with the bullying when it occurs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we in this House, and all outside it, have an interest in seeking to solve the problem. It involves the minds of the young people who will be the next generation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches, does the noble Viscount agree that the Government should set some example in this matter? Is the Minister aware that during the Maastricht debate in another place, many of the sensitive souls in this House were extremely distressed at the tactics adopted by the Government Whips towards long-serving and very sensitive Conservative Members of Parliament?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, during the Maastricht debate, I believe that it would be difficult to decide who was doing the bullying to whom.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following the last question, perhaps I may say this. It should not be a matter of blaming the people who try their arm; you should blame the people for letting them get away with it.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, to return to the subject of the Maastricht debate, I do not know who got away with what.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the Minister's constructive response. Will he ensure that he is not diverted by quite irrelevant points raised by other noble Lords? If there is bullying in the Army, it should be tackled. But that is no reason for not tackling bullying in schools. I am glad that the Minister is responding so constructively. However, is he aware of an article in the Daily Telegraph about school bullying, which stated:
"School inspectors are to pay extra attention to the efforts of teachers to combat bullying … All inspection teams will be required specifically to report to parents on schools' individual arrangements … Special guidance aimed at reducing the incidence of bullying in boarding schools will be issued by the Department for Education today … Advice will be sent to State schools next year".
The article was based on remarks by Mr. Eric Forth, the Minister's colleague. Unfortunately, the date of the article is 19th May 1992. There are now 18,000 children telephoning about bullying. Does the noble Viscount agree that a great deal remains to be done?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Department for Education will maintain its robust policy to counter bullying in our schools.

Sunday Trading Bill
11.29 a.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clause 2,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 5 to 9,

Schedule 5.—(Lord Annaly.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 12,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 13 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 to 40,

Schedule 4,

Clause 41,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 42 to 106,

Schedule 6,

927

Clauses 107 to 114,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 115 to 142,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 143 to 148,

Schedules 9, 10 and 11,

Clauses 149 to 152.— (Lord Annaly.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
11.30 a.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
We are here to debate the 1994 Finance Bill and I hope we shall have a full and interesting debate. I can say that we have a full day for it.
The Government's principle of sound finance is embodied in this Bill and it is encouraging to note that a recent CBI survey, among others, suggests further strengthening of the recovery in the months ahead. All indicators show that the United Kingdom has emerged from recession sooner than our main European partners. Growth in 1993 turned out stronger than we were expecting this time last year. In March 1993 the forecast for growth was 1¼ per cent; in November last year that forecast was 1¾ per cent. It is encouraging to note that growth is up 2 per cent. on a year earlier. The economy has been growing for two years and recovery has been broadly based across the economy as a whole, with the manufacturing and services industries expanding and the construction industry now joining them.
Other indicators confirm this picture. Retail sales have been rising steadily and are at record levels. Many more people are buying cars, and the output of our car industry is holding up well. And unemployment is falling at a much earlier phase of recovery than previously. Unemployment has fallen by a quarter of a million since the end of 1992 and has fallen across all regions of the United Kingdom.
We do not believe that these are only short-term developments. The economy is well placed for recovery to turn into a sustained period of growth. This reflects the success of the Government's policy of keeping inflation under firm control: since the end of 1992 we have had the longest run of consecutive months with inflation below 3 per cent. since 1961.
The Budget of my right honourable friend the Chancellor in November was designed to ensure that recovery continued to be steady and sustainable. He set out a clear and credible path to eliminate borrowing by the end of the decade, through higher taxes and lower public spending. Without that, confidence would have taken a serious knock. In fact the Budget strengthened the economy by underlining our intention for inflation to remain at low levels. We got to grips with the public finances in a way designed to do as little damage as possible to incentives.
In line with independent forecasters, we expect the economy to grow by 2½ per cent. in 1994. We believe the economy is healthy enough to take tax increases in its stride. We have had over a decade of reforms that
928
have tackled the unions, freed up labour markets, reformed the tax system and transformed the nationalised industries. People are benefiting from low interest rates and companies are in much better financial shape. And the clear message from business surveys and forecasters is that they expect recovery to continue and to strengthen.
Her Majesty's Government have two key policy objectives they intend to pursue to ensure that growth is sustainable: first, to keep underlying inflation within a target range of 1 to 4 per cent, bringing it within the lower half of that range by the end of our current Parliament; secondly, to restore the public finances to better health and bring the PSBR back towards balance over the medium term.
There is still much more to be done. Business must go on playing its part by keeping a tight lid on costs —achieving low wage settlements and pricing products competitively. Some people are waiting for cost control to go out of the window as growth gets stronger. I believe they will be disappointed. British business fought hard to gain a competitive edge. It simply cannot afford to blunt it in another joust with inflation.
Wage settlements are being kept down. Underlying earnings growth in the United Kingdom in recent months is at its lowest level for 25 years. These improvements in our competitiveness are the key to better United Kingdom trade performance in the years ahead. We will not fritter them away by unleashing inflation.
Low inflation is essential for sustainable recovery. Without the sharp reduction in inflation the United Kingdom has achieved, we should not have been able to cut interest rates to their present level. And without low inflation and low interest rates, businesses cannot compete, invest and plan ahead with confidence.
Of course, this Budget deals with both tax and spending. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that we have set out tough ceilings for public expenditure to ensure that spending falls as a share of national income over time. Total public spending will be reduced by £10 billion over the next three years. This represents our toughest expenditure remit for 15 years, and we will continue to subject spending to searching reviews.
I now turn to the Bill. It is a long and in some places a complex Bill. But it initiates the most radical overhaul of the income tax system since the introduction of PAYE and introduces two new taxes. When legislating for such important measures it is important to be thorough. Sixty pages of the Bill, for example, are taken up by the introduction of the new taxes; another 34 pages cover measures on Customs and Excise appeals and penalties. A further 75 pages of the Bill provide the rules for the introduction of a system of self-assessment and another 40 pages are devoted to substantial anti-avoidance measures.
The complexity of tax legislation reflects the complexity of the modern commercial world. Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to making tax legislation as simple as possible, consulting wherever possible on its proposals. There has been extensive consultation with tax experts and interested parties on 169 clauses of this Bill, of which 102 draft

929
clauses were released. We have also published explanatory Notes on Clauses for the first time. We believe this has helped interested organisations to understand the measures being proposed more fully.
I turn now briefly to the detail of the Bill, beginning with those clauses covering indirect taxation. This Government's policy has always been to shift the burden of taxation over time from income to expenditure. This reflects the feeling that people should be allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible. Help must be provided for the less well off, but to give incentives for individuals it is preferable to tax people on what they consume rather than on the work they do.
Having said that, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has to weigh up many factors when making his Budget judgment. In making his decisions on alcohol, for example, he listened carefully to arguments from the industry about declining consumption and the growth of cross-Channel imports. As a result, the duty on beer and spirits has not been increased; Clause 1 amends the duty on wine, sparkling wine and cider in line with inflation and reduces the duty on fortified wine by 5.9 per cent. Clause 2 increases the duty on tobacco products by 7.3 per cent. The Government have also announced their intention to increase tobacco duties on average by at least 3 per cent. a year in real terms in future Budgets.
Clause 3 increases road fuel duties by 3p. a litre. And the Government have strengthened their earlier commitment so that road fuel duties will on average be increased by 5 per cent. in real terms in future Budgets. Clause 4 introduces a modest increase of £5 a year on vehicle excise duties for cars; the duty for lorries remains unaffected.
The Bill also includes two new taxes: air passenger duty and insurance premium tax. Duty of £5 for departures to anywhere in the United Kingdom and the European Union and £10 for departures to other destinations will be levied on all passengers flying from United Kingdom airports from 1st November this year. An ad valorem tax will be levied on insurance premiums at a rate of 2½ per cent. from 1st October this year. This rate is among the lowest in Europe. Tax will apply to most general insurance where the insured risk is located in the United Kingdom.
Clauses 7 to 19 introduce a package of reforms affecting excise law and new appeals arrangements for resolving most difficulties involving excise and customs matters. The purpose is to rationalise and simplify excise law and to make available a simple, economical and independent procedure for appealing against excise and customs decisions that is fair to traders, public and Customs and Excise alike. Clauses 20 to 27 of the Bill reform the powers available to customs officers for access to information from businesses involved in the importation and exportation of goods.
I now turn to direct taxation. Clauses 75 and 76 set income tax rates, allowances and the basic rate limit. These are unchanged for 1994–95. Clauses 77 and 81 of
930
the Bill restrict the rate of relief for married couples' allowance and on mortgage interest to 20 per cent. from April 1994 and then to 15 per cent. from April 1995.
The Bill contains a number of anti-avoidance measures. Clause 98 is designed to counter the abuse of tax relief for profit related pay, while Clause 127 tackles the use of artificial schemes (for example, gold bars) designed to avoid PAYE and national insurance contribution obligations.
The Bill helps business. It contains measures aimed at generating new investment in the unquoted company sector. The main rate of corporation tax remains the lowest in the European Union. Clause 138 and Schedule 16 introduce the foreign income dividend scheme which will allow companies to recover repayment of surplus advance corporation tax when they pay dividends out of foreign source profits. And Clause 137 of the Bill introduces the new Enterprise Investment Scheme for investment in unquoted trading companies to replace the Business Expansion Scheme.
Clause 91 and Schedule 11 provide for capital gains tax reinvestment relief to be extended.
Clauses 178 to 218 and Schedules 19 and 20 provide the rules for the introduction of a system of self-assessment of income, capital gains tax and corporation tax. The introduction of self-assessment is a major reform which will make the tax system simpler, fairer and easier to understand, particularly for small businesses.
These measures and the others I have mentioned will go a long way to creating the right kind of climate for British business to succeed now and in years to come. I have no doubt that the "no nonsense" Budget of my right honourable friend the Chancellor has produced a Bill that will tackle the real challenges that face our country today.
The Bill is that of a responsible Government, determined to ensure sound public finances by bringing the PSBR back to balance over the medium term. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henley.)
11.42 a.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for introducing with remarkable brevity and clarity this extremely long and complex Bill. We have just heard a speech of stirring economic optimism from the noble Lord. As I listened to it, I could not help recalling the judgment of that renowned philosopher of modern political life, Miss Mandy Rice-Davies:
"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?".
He would say—wouldn't he?—that the Government's considered policies have produced the 2.6 per cent. growth rate of the past year, while neglecting to mention that that has merely returned our economy to exactly the same level of output as four years ago.
He would say—wouldn't he?—that inflation was at remarkably low levels, while failing to mention that that has been produced by a prolonged recession which has not only cost millions of families their livelihoods and

931
thousands of businesses their very existence, but has also meant that this country has over the past four years suffered a cumulative loss of income of £120 billion compared to what would have been earned if the economy had maintained its trend growth rate. That is £2,200 in today's prices paid by every man, woman and child in this country for this Government's recession.
He would say—wouldn't he?—that the Government were facing up to the tough measures that are needed to tackle the budget deficit, taking some pride in the fact, as he did yesterday, that the deficit has come in at just £4 billion under the predicted £50 billion. He would not say that prior to the 1992 election the then Chancellor of the Exchequer told the British people that the deficit for the financial year 1993–94 would be just £35 billion. And on the basis of that prediction the Prime Minister could confidently declare:
"we will be able to make reductions in the rate of taxation year on year … There will be no VAT increase … I have no plans to raise the level of national insurance contributions … We will maintain mortgage tax relief'.
Those were all promises that were made by the Prime Minister. All have been broken in this Finance Bill, as they were in its immediate predecessor. This Finance Bill alone, as the noble Lord told us, has 60 pages devoted to the introduction of new taxes.
Those promises have been broken, of course, because of the transformation after the election of the £35 billion deficit into a £50 billion deficit—with my economist colleagues in the Treasury being forced to take the blame for yet another forecast that had gone wrong.
But did the forecasters really get it wrong? It has been widely reported that in the spring of 1992 the Treasury economists' forecast for the deficit was £42 billion. It was quite a good forecast, with an error of just £4 billion —just the size of the error of which, yesterday, the noble Lord was so proud. It has also been widely reported that that figure was massaged downwards, on the instructions of the Chancellor, to the £35 billion figure that was published in the 1992 Red Book.
Is that account true? If the noble Lord answers no other question at the end of this debate, he should answer that one. For it is one thing for the Government to break their taxation promises because of unforeseen events but quite another thing for the Government knowingly to conceal the true forecast of the size of the deficit, and so knowingly conceal the size of the tax increases that would follow. I look forward to the noble Lord giving the House a true account of this sorry episode.
Not only were the British people misled over the size of the deficit and the subsequent tax increases, they were also misled about the Prime Minister's supposed commitment to fairness in taxation. On 5th April 1992 the Prime Minister told Sir David Frost:
"Look at the relationship between tax cuts and expenditure. This year in his budget Norman Lamont cut taxes by £1.8 billion. And where did it go? To the low paid, to the people who have modest incomes … That is the right way to divide the cake".
If that is the right way to divide the cake, will the noble Lord tell us why, as the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies has shown, the top 1 per cent. of income earners, with average incomes of £120,000 a year, have
932
received 30 per cent. of all the tax cuts since 1979 but are now paying only 4 per cent. of the tax rises imposed by this and the preceding Finance Bill?
If that is "the right way to divide the cake", will the noble Lord explain why, according again to the IFS, everyone earning more than £64,000 a year will, after this Finance Bill, be paying less in taxation as a share of income than they did in 1979, while everyone on lower incomes will be paying more?
If that is "the right way to divide the cake" why in Clause 76 of this Finance Bill have the Government used the most insidious form of tax increase—the failure to uprate allowances—thus drawing 300,000 of the lowest paid, including 140,000 pensioners, into income taxation?
This Finance Bill is like its predecessor, and like every Finance Bill for the past 15 years. It is dedicated to the principle of inequality. That is no surprise. That principle has been an important pillar of the Government's economic policy for the past 15 years.
However, what we had hoped for in this Finance Bill, and what we had hoped for in the noble Lord's speech and, indeed, in recent speeches of his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was some indication of what new economic policy they have to put before the country. We had hoped for some new analysis which would give us the confidence that the economic misery which the Government's policies have inflicted upon this country for the past four years will not happen again. It is surely right for us this morning to stand back a moment from the detail of this Finance Bill and ask: What went wrong in the 1980s? What lessons have been learnt'? In what ways has policy changed?
I suggest that the key to our long-term prosperity is now, and always has been, the competitiveness of our industry, particularly our manufacturing industry. Unless British industry is competitive, any sustained rate of growth which might significantly reduce unemployment will eventually be overwhelmed by rising inflation and a growing external deficit.
There was a time in the 1980s when the proposition that manufacturing competitiveness is vital to our economic health was rejected by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, now the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, rejected the famous 1985 report: of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade, which argued that case as,
"a mixture of special pleading dressed up as analysis and assertion masquerading as evidence".
That was the same person, now the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who argued that he was,
"at a loss to understand the selective importance attached by the Opposition and some Tories to the manufacturing sector"
The conclusions of that report—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in his place as he chaired the committee which prepared it—published in the heady, self-confident days of the mid-1980s, were so remarkably far-sighted that they are worth quoting. The committee said:
"Unless the climate is changed so that the manufacturing base is enlarged … the country will experience adverse effects which will worsen with time. These will include: … a contraction of manufacturing … an irreplaceable loss of GDP … an adverse balance of payments of such proportions that severely

933
deflationary measures will be needed … lower tax revenues for public spending on welfare, defence and other areas … higher unemployment … the economy stagnating and inflation arising".
Written in the optimistic mid-1980s, that is a remarkable prediction of what has happened over the past four years. It explains the root causes of the £50 million deficit. It identifies why taxes are now being forced up to record levels but still failing to maintain public services. It is the key to what went wrong.
Has anything been changed to suggest that that will not happen again? Have the Government learned from their mistakes —mistakes for which the British people are paying in this Finance Bill?
Yesterday, the Trade and Industry Committee of another place—a committee with a majority of Conservative Members —published a report entitled, Competitiveness of UK Manufacturing Industry. The findings of that report, though sometimes presented in a somewhat more optimistic tone, are remarkably similar to the findings of the 1985 report. In its general conclusion, the Trade and Industry Committee stated yesterday:
"We encountered both alarming and encouraging aspects of UK manufacturing. The alarming aspects are the continuing low level of labour productivity and the remaining deep-rooted problems in areas such as investment, finance for industry, training and the rarity of strategic alliances between firms. The rise of the newly industrialising countries is likely to endanger an increasing range of UK industries. There is a risk of decline in the size of the UK's manufacturing sector".
The committee continued in a somewhat more upbeat mood:
"However, we have no doubt that that can be avoided. Some past problems have been resolved, and there is the possibility of sustained low inflation and interest rates.
But even that optimism is qualified by the fear that urgent action is required if decline is not to continue. Again, I quote the committee:
"There is an unprecedented opportunity to leave behind decades of relative decline and restore UK manufacturing as a whole to a position as a world leader. The opportunity will be temporary, given the rise of the newly industrialising countries, and action therefore needs to begin urgently".
That warning, given yesterday, is as timely as were those early unheeded warnings of 1985.
The failure of this Government to appreciate what needs to be done is graphically illustrated by its response to that growing competition which British industry faces from the newly industrialising countries. A large number of recent studies, most notably the important new book on North-South Trade by Professor Adrian Wood of Sussex University, have shown that, up to now, the main impact on Britain of that competition from the third world has been the enormous increase in the unemployment of unskilled men. Sometimes that is because third world producers capture our markets for goods produced predominantly by unskilled labour and men are thrown out of work. Sometimes it is because British firms stay competitive by investing in capital intensive and skill intensive production, shedding their unskilled labour force.
Whatever the reason, those have been important elements in the fact that, since 1979, the number of economically inactive men has increased from 8 per cent. of the population to around 23 per cent. today. In other words, compared with the situation 15 years ago
934
when one in every 12 men was economically inactive, today nearly one in every four men in this country is economically inactive—either registered unemployed, or having simply dropped out of the labour force. That is a terrifying figure. One cannot but agree with the report, which argues that,
"this highlights the need to raise the competitiveness of UK manufacturing and of the UK as a location for manufacturing, especially high-skill manufacturing".
But what has been the Government's response to the potential competition from the third world and indeed from eastern Europe? It has not been a commitment to skills and the quality of the labour force, but an obsession with deregulating and casualising the labour market, eliminating worker protection and effective collective bargaining. The Government seem to believe that the only way to create a flexible labour force is to remove all workers' rights, to water down health and safety legislation in the workplace and to cut social protection.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As yesterday's report—made, I remind noble Lords, by a committee with a Conservative majority—makes clear:
"Successful manufacturing increasingly requires the full commitment of the labour force. Some companies have recognised this through the concept of 'empowerment"'.
That is empowerment of the workforce—not the bonfire of workers' rights to which this Government remain committed. A truly flexible labour force is a well trained, secure and confident labour force, sustained by a framework of employment rights which encourages the worker to invest in and develop his or her own skills.
The Government's deregulated, low wage, low skill strategy is a policy which is doomed to failure. Again, the report by the committee in the other place argues:
"The efficient use of labour and the raising of its value through better education and training ultimately matter far more than low labour costs".
I make no apology for spending so much time in a debate on the Finance Bill on the position of manufacturing industry, for it is on the strength and competitiveness of our manufacturing industry that the nation's financial security and the public purse ultimately depend. What is truly sad and disturbing about yesterday's report, which is crammed with a host of other sensible ideas that I commend to your Lordships, is that, in the words of a famous baseball coach of the Los Angeles Dodgers:
"It's déja vu, all over again."
The policies toward industry, skills and investment that we see in place today are no different from those which this Government pursued in the 1980s. If anything, those simplistic, deregulatory policies are simply being applied with an ever greater intensity, perhaps born of ever greater desperation. If lessons have been learnt, will the noble Lord tell us what they are? Will he tell us what policies have been changed and how they have been changed?
Today, once again, manufacturing is coming off worse. If we look behind the euphoria of that 2.6 per cent. growth rate, we find that manufacturing output is still 5 per cent. down on the level of 1990. More disturbing still, the level of investment in Britain's

935
manufacturing industry is still more than 20 per cent. below the level of four years ago and at present shows no signs of recovery.
This Finance Bill and the new unified Budget from which it sprang contain not an iota of new thinking. The Government seem to have learned nothing from their mistakes. Unless there is a fundamental change of direction, a new commitment to investment in skills and to the creation of a new financial structure for manufacturing industry, we cannot look to the rest of this decade with confidence. A re-run of the 1980s looks ever more likely—déja vu, all over again.
Noon
Lord Ezra: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in introducing the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, indicated that the Bill is a complex measure. That is putting it mildly. It is one of the longest and most complicated documents we have ever had to debate in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said —and I much appreciated the thought—that the Government's intention is to simplify the tax system so that the ordinary taxpayer can understand it. But they seem to be seeking to reach that objective by a very complex route. When the Chancellor introduced the Budget he did so with great skill and verve. Indeed, there was much laudatory comment in the press on his performance. It was only when the Bill itself was available and people were able to read the small print that second thoughts prevailed. There is now grave concern about what. the Bill will do to individuals and to enterprise.
The whole operation of the Finance Bill suggests that the Treasury was motivated by the single objective of cutting back the public sector borrowing requirement; reducing public borrowing so as to bring expenditure and income more into balance. That is an entirely desirable and proper objective. Any organisation, particularly a government responsible for the finances of the nation, must see that expenditure and income are kept roughly in balance. The trouble with this exercise is that it seems to have been the exclusive intention. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, so effectively indicated, there has been little regard for longer term considerations.
In that connection I was interested this morning to read what has happened to the Treasury building. It appears that the Treasury so limited expenditure over the years on repair and renovation of its own building that it is now in a state in which the bill for putting it right will be so high that it may well have to leave the building. Does that not indicate how shortsighted is the view of cutting back for the short term without any regard to the long term? I shall use that example as the theme of my remarks; I shall call it the "Treasury building syndrome".
I am glad to say that Sir Terence Burns, the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, is beginning to feel that the Treasury should be taking a longer term view. He is reported as having said in a speech at Durham University on 27th April that he thought it was about time that the Treasury took a more strategic role.
936
That is excellent news. I thought we might use some of the time available to us in this debate to give Sir Terence a few ideas.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the economy is showing much better signs at the moment: he went through all the positive indicators of recovery. We are of course delighted that we are recovering. Why should anyone argue against the fact that GDP is rising again at a rate of 2.5 per cent., that inflation has been kept down to the lowest level for 20 years, and so forth. All that is good news. The aspect of it which I want to emphasise is what happens next. The economic history of Britain in the post-war years shows that after every recovery we have gone back into recession. Therefore the wise action to take at the start of this recovery is to consider what we need to do to prevent history repeating itself. In other words, what can we do to get out of the boom and bust cycle?
Let us consider what are the indicators of moving from boom to bust. The first indicator is that businesses grow short of skilled labour. I have seen it happen time and time again. We are not training up a sufficient reserve of skilled labour and therefore businesses, as their order books start lengthening, frantically look around for skilled labour. That immediately pushes up wages and we have a wage spiral created by that shortage of skilled labour. That obviously has an inflationary effect. It is something that could be avoided if we had adequate reserves of skilled labour.
The next thing that happens—this links in with the, remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in relation to the industrial base—is that our imports start to increase excessively. That is already happening. The balance of payments position indicates that we are: importing substantially more than we are exporing. even though our exports have been increasing. That reveals where another weakness lies.
We must see how we can obviate these difficulties. We must look at the matter very much as the noble Lord. Lord Eatwell, did; that is, in terms of what investment requirements are needed. It is shortage of current. investment which creates future problems. Let us consider the public sector, where there are some important capital assets which need to be maintained and refurbished. In the unified Budget, for the first time we had a division between current and capital expenditure. That is to be welcomed. However, the figures show an unfortunate trend. They show that the total public asset creation will average about 12 per cent. less over the coming three years compared with the past three years. We are apparently being committed to continued under-investment in essential public sector assets. In other words, the Treasury building syndrome.
I shall give two examples. The first is the London Underground, frequently mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Two years ago the Government agreed to support London Transport in its objective of creating a "Decently Modern Metro". It required funding of £900 million per annum with an increasing proportion of self-finance as the project developed. But the funding for this year—virtually the first year of progress towards the decently modern metro—is no more than £475

937
million. In other words, the whole proposal has been cut in half. We do not know when the improved metro system that London so urgently needs will come about. Is that a wise step to take? Will we not find ourselves in the same situation as the Treasury building—cutting back until the time comes when putting it right will be virtually an impossibility?
Housing is another illustration. The English House Condition Survey of 1991, published in 1993, showed that over 2.5 million dwellings in this country are statutorily unfit or in need of substantial repair. The repair costs of putting right that 13 per cent. part of our housing stock is £8 billion. Those houses are largely inhabited by people on low incomes who cannot do much about the repairs themselves. However, in spite of that urgent need revealed by the government survey, the funding for renovation grants was cut from £1,300 million in 1984–85 to £435 million in 1991–92, and there is a proposed cut to £250 million in 1995–96. There is no way that type of expenditure can prevent further deterioration in the housing stock. It means that more people will live in worse housing conditions. Is that a sensible policy for us to pursue? We are replicating throughout the country the mistakes the Treasury made in its own building.
I turn to the private sector. I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said. He was quite right to go back to the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade of 1985, in which I had a part to play. I have not yet obtained a copy of the Select Committee report of another place to which he referred but I am interested that the Select Committee virtually repeated what was said then. So, after a period of eight years, we seem to have made very little progress in the essentials of a forward strategy.
Our tax system has a bias against business investment. It takes a long time to recover the cost of investment and many of us have been pressing over the years for the time to be shortened by increased capital allowances. The Government introduced increased capital allowances, but for a very short period, and now they have removed them. The CBI and others have repeatedly drawn attention to this bias against manufacturing and other business investment. What we need to do therefore is work out ways in which the fiscal instrument can be used to stimulate business investment. The private investment initiative which the Government have launched in order to bring private capital into public projects is a wholly desirable measure. Unfortunately, so far very few projects with substantial private funding have emerged. The reason for that is the continuing argument about how the risk is to be shared. Obviously, if a much greater risk is to be put on the private money, the private sector will be reluctant to come in. That needs to be looked at if it is to be made to work.
Finally, there is the question of education and training, which comes back to what I was saying about skilled labour. Unless we look very seriously at ways in which we can increase our reservoir of skilled personnel, we shall find ourselves back in the same
938
situation we have had on previous occasions. As a result of a boom we become so short of skilled personnel that it has a serious inflationary effect.
The conclusion to which all this leads—I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on this point—is that we really must have a statement of longer term policy from the Government than is inherent in the present Bill. They might say that a Bill of this kind is not a proper vehicle for a long term policy. But it should, in my opinion, represent a step towards the achievement of a long-term policy. The short-term measures we take should reflect what we are trying to do in the longer term. I do not get that impression from the Bill. Therefore I hope that before long the Government will, in an appropriate vehicle—perhaps in the long-awaited White Paper on competitiveness—indicate what their long-term economic policy is so that we can see whether the short-term steps taken from time to time, as in Finance Bills, fit in with the longer term objective. Unless and until we pursue an approach of that kind I fear that we shall continue as we have done in the past with recoveries and recessions. That will do much harm to the fabric of the nation unless we change it.
12.14 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may first take up one or two points which are supplementary to our discussion last Wednesday and which bear on our discussion today. I then enumerated the number of classes of your Lordships who bring to bear on the problems of finance and economics a very wide range and depth of knowledge. I did not enumerate all the classes of persons to whom I am referring and it is indeed remarkable that today there is an added galaxy to those that I did enumerate. Your Lordships will, I think, be particularly grateful that two trained economists—I was going to say three but I only now see two—are addressing your Lordships.
Secondly, there was a good deal of confusion last Wednesday between a Finance Bill, a Money Bill and a Supply Bill. For your Lordships to play a proper part in the discussion of these matters it is essential that the confusion should be worked out before next year. The answer is that a Supply Bill is not a technical term but that many Bills do deal with supply. As a matter of convention and not of statute, your Lordships do not interfere with supply because your Lordships do not have the machinery or the responsibility.
Thirdly, four of your Lordships who are to speak today have had to introduce a Finance Bill. We would all have been horrified to think that it was a Bill of this dimension. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, used the word "monstrous", and he is one of those who have had to do it. It is indeed monstrous. One of the faults is that it conflates supply with tax management. I suggest as strongly as I can that there should be a separate tax management Bill and that your Lordships can do a great deal to improve such a Bill.
Having said that, perhaps I may say a few words of apology. First, although I was able to rearrange my plans for today, I still have to catch a train later. If the debate goes on substantially longer than estimated, I

939
hope your Lordships will acquit me of discourtesy if I leave before the end. That particularly applies to the three noble Lords who are to reply to the debate.
My second words of apology must be for intervening at all in this debate when it is many, many years since I was a Treasury Minister. I felt my inadequacy and my out-of-dateness particularly in listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Ezra. My excuse for doing so is that when I was at the Treasury I served with two remarkable men whose characters and methods have a lesson for us today. The first was the Chancellor, Derick Heathcoat-Amory, and the second was the economic adviser, Sir Robert Hall. Their backgrounds were entirely different, Sir Robert Hall being an eminent academic economist. What they had in common was an instinctive sense, an intuition, as to the way the economy was moving.
We have not really heard much today about trade cycles. Indeed, a good deal of the arguments that have been addressed to your Lordships so far were in complete disregard of the fact that trade has a cyclical motion. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, he will tell us what is the current dominant theory about trade cycles. When we were a largely agrarian economy in the world we were told that it was due to sun spots. But I suppose that that has gone the way of children being born under gooseberry bushes. That is very important to know. In the meantime it is the intuitive feeling of those who are responsible and who know the way the economy is moving to make very slight adjustments. In January 1993 there was much talk of a kick-start to the economy. Like most jargon, that was extremely dangerous. The Chancellor cut basic rates by one full point per cent. That caused great consternation in the City, whose opinion must be regarded. They thought that the Government could not be really serious about bringing down inflation.
The policy and practice of the present Chancellor are unexceptional in that respect. There are very slight adjustments. I take it that inflation is now considered to be largely under control so that we can move to the two major problems which face us, the first of which is fiscal —namely, the public sector borrowing requirement—and, secondly, social economic unemployment, which is particularly intractable because the solution of one is almost bound to exacerbate the other.
I cannot remember a Chancellor ever facing a more difficult task than the present Chancellor had at the time of the Autumn Budget. There were conflicting accounts and indications of the way the economy was moving. Your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, a series of statistics which are very encouraging and from the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Ezra, a series of statistics which are rather less encouraging. They are not necessarily incompatible because practically every economic obverse has its reverse.
I mentioned the two major problems. I take first the amount which we are borrowing. That is really dishonest because we are asking our children to pay for our living expenses. Moreover, not only is it immoral in that sense, but it is extremely dangerous. Famous empires have gone bankrupt. The great Spanish empire, at the very height of its power, went bankrupt on several
940
occasions and that led to its long, slow decline. Today perhaps we do not go bankrupt, but we have to go, as we saw, to the International Monetary Fund. There was much talk of sovereignty during the Maastricht debates, without any very clear definition of what that meant, except perhaps from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon.
When one is in the hands of the International Monetary Fund it is perfectly idle to speak as though we had complete economic independence. The difficulty about giving priority, as I believe it should be given, in order to reduce public sector borrowing is that it is deflationary and bound to have an adverse effect on the already alarming figure for unemployment. It is true that the tendency has been marginally encouraging recently. But nevertheless your Lordships will wish to face the fact that a good deal of that unemployment is structural —in other words, it is not cyclical and it is not affected in the end to any great extent by a favourable movement in the economy. Indeed, every time there is an upturn there is a residue of unemployment which is largely clue to the technical improvements in manufacturing industry.
How is that to be dealt with? I can think of no way of dealing with cyclical unemployment except by taking a substantial body of workers out of the labour market. It can be done at either end—by raising the: school-leaving age or by reducing the retirement age. The recent decision has been to equalise the retirement age at 65 years rather than by reducing it equally to 60. That is understandable when one considers the cost to the Exchequer of following the second course and also because of the fact that raising the retirement age to 64 or 65 years preserves a fairer balance between the present and those who have to pay for it in future.
That seems to me to be the major problem socially which must be faced in connection with the economy. As I said, it is difficult to reconcile action to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement with reducing the size of structural unemployment. The answer will be that one should approach the matter in both ways, feeling the way gradually.
I have one suggestion I wish to make. With the economy moving comparatively rapidly, as it does these days, there seems to be a big advantage in considering expenditure at the stage of appropriation. I am very anxious to hear what the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Peston, and the noble Lords on my left have to say about that because they have great experience of these matters. The economy can change substantially between the Budget resolution, the Finance Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill, when appropriation is made. We have no machinery for appropriation in this country now. It is not our business to tell the other place how it should manage. But, for example, America deals very seriously with the stage of appropriation. I venture to suggest that that might be something which your Lordships would wish to consider.
I come to the theme which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has mentioned in the past and which he raised again today; namely, the necessity for simplification of our fiscal system. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will shortly be saying this it is a horror and

941
it is chaos. In the end, a really simple fiscal system would have one direct tax only, progressive only in the sense that the more that is earned, the more that is paid, and one all-embracing indirect tax extending to all expenditure. We are unlikely to get that because excise duties bring in too much revenue. But we can move in both directions.
I should have thought—this is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will be able to help us—that the schedules of the Income Tax Act could now be conflated. They go back to the very revival of income tax under Sir Robert Peel. I fancy that they are not conflated because the Inland Revenue is deeply devoted to the test of allowable expenditure, which has to be wholly, necessarily and exclusively for earning a source of income. The last Royal Commission on Taxation proposed a more relaxed test, but the Inland Revenue obviously was uneasy at any relaxation there. We should consider whether that should stand in the way of an extensive simplification.
I finally, very shortly and summarily refer to a suggestion that I made when the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, originally raised the question of simplification; namely, that our tax avoidance provisions could be enormously simplified if we adopted the American and the former Australian system under which there is an injunction whereby any transaction, the dominant purpose of which is the avoidance of tax, shall be void for that purpose, although in view of a letter that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I repeat that it would be valid for all other purposes. Your Lordships might wish to look at Clause 165 and the few subsequent clauses which deal with tax avoidance to see how extremely complicated this has become—and those provisions are simple compared to many in the fiscal code.
My last suggestion is more controversial, I know. It is that we should go to the American system of general fiscal equity, whereas the Inland Revenue is deeply attached to complete fiscal equity. In other words, however complicated an anti-avoidance provision is, it must not give rise even in remote circumstances to a double charge of tax. As I said, that is more controversial because complete fiscal equity is very deeply entrenched in our system. However, I suggest that we should consider simplifying the anti-avoidance provisions.
I hope that that will do and I end as I began: I hope that your Lordships will acquit me of discourtesy if I cannot stay until the end of the debate.
12.34 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as I indicated in our exchanges on Wednesday, as this is a debate on the Finance Bill, I propose departing from tradition by talking about the Finance Bill. I am only too prepared to leave the economy to other noble Lords.
We have a Government who are committed to deregulation. I have always been somewhat sceptical of some of these political catchphrases because they are sometimes little more than cover for special interest groups trying to remove provisions of the law designed
942
to protect the citizen against the special interest concerned. However, what shook me beyond anything that has happened in your Lordships' House for many a long day was to find the leading philosophical Members on the Benches opposite coming out as the most vigorous supporters of deregulation in our debates on the Sunday Trading Bill. Indeed, apart from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, there was nobody on these Benches who was as vigorous in demanding deregulation as the leading Members of the Opposition. I do not know whether that can be described as "political conversion" or whether to use some other phrase. It is no doubt a matter that we shall consider when we come to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. There is of course a place for deregulation and I do not want to say anything else on that, but there is also a case for ensuring that the citizen is properly protected.
Having said that, it is monstrous and unintelligible that a Government who are committed to deregulation should produce a Finance Bill of 462 pages. Perhaps I may put that into perspective. When I joined the Inland Revenue, our Bible was the Income Tax Act 1918 which consolidated the whole corpus of income taxation: on companies as well as individuals, on invested income as well as earned income. The whole corpus, extending from 1799 when Mr. William Pitt introduced taxation, right through to 1918, occupied exactly 180 pages. Those 180 pages covered the consolidation of the whole corpus of taxation over a period extending beyond 100 years and compares with the 462 pages in this year's Finance Bill. What is most worrying, however, is not merely the inflation in the quantity of paper, but the fact that it is accelerating. If one considers successive periods, the growth is exponential; it is not arithmetical. Where we will end up if this goes on, I do not know and I certainly hesitate to think.
If we are going to do anything about this, we need to go back and to ask ourselves: How did it happen? I propose identifying five points by way of illustration. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is participating in the debate. Stafford Cripps was not the first Chancellor I served, but I had a very high regard indeed for him. Every year Stafford used to ask whether I could suggest to him a tax that he could abolish. Indeed, in his second Budget he abolished not one tax but two taxes. What do we find today ? Chancellors of the Exchequer do not abolish two taxes, one tax or even no taxes, but introduce two brand new taxes. That is my first point.
My second point is this: over the desk of every Treasury Minister every day in the run-up of many months before the Budget there comes a great flood of paper from the revenue departments, putting forward the most difficult, complex and arcane proposals for legislation. Unless you are a fiscal expert, it is beyond the wit of man to understand those documents, let alone to take sensible or reasonable decisions on them. I was talking to Mr. Harold Macmillan about this and he looked at me in the way that he always used to look at people and said that he had a simple way of dealing with it. He rationed them to one a year. He did not mind all that much which one it was. I have always thought that that is how we got the Premium Bonds. Now, however,

943
the habit of rationing the revenue departments to a minimum number of proposals has long since disappeared, and that underlies much of the complication of recent Finance Bills.
Thirdly, in the Government led by Mr. Edward Heath in 1970–74, we launched and carried through most of a major programme to restructure the whole tax system. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston is present today to participate in the debate. He was one of the people who greatly contributed to drawing up the plans, which of course was done under the leadership of lain Macleod. But other noble Lords, for example, my noble friends Lord Joseph and Lord Lawson, also participated in the work. My own participation was limited to the humble task of actually doing the work involved—the rhetoric of course was left to the other participants.
That great work of tax reform was, I should say, coupled with massive tax reductions. I was never quite certain why the Opposition took such great exception to it; indeed, I never quite discovered whether they objected to tax reform or whether they merely objected to lax reduction. However, that work came to an end as a result of the unfortunate events of February 1974. I shall briefly pass over the intervening periods. The work was then taken up again by Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was pushed ahead under his leadership and in the early years of the chancellorship of Mr. Nigel Lawson, now my noble friend Lord Lawson. But that impetus to clean up the tax system has not only been totally lost, but what we have now seen are measures to make the tax system more difficult, complex and unintelligible.
My next point goes back to what Mr. Harold Lever, one of the greatest of the Financial Secretaries to the Treasury, described as "ripping little wheezes". They are special schemes introduced by Chancellors of the Exchequer in the hope that they will catch the public eye and no doubt reap plaudits for them. They go under all sorts of peculiar names likes PEPs, TESSAs and SERPS. I never know which of them are tax schemes and which are the names of dog foods, but no doubt most noble Lords will be able to identify them.
However, there is one point which runs through every one of those schemes: the benefit, ultimately, does not end up in the pockets of the taxpayer concerned; it ends up elsewhere. We learnt that bitter lesson over the capital allowances for industry. Those allowances did not end up in the pockets of manufacturers of goods; they ended up in the pockets of banks which manufactured schemes for assisting industry on the basis that the benefit of the tax reliefs ended up in the deserving pockets of the banks. Anyone who studies the present debate over SERPS will notice—although no one has drawn attention to it—what has happened to the tax relief in that respect. It has ended up in the deserving pockets of the financial sector of British industry, or whatever else one likes to call it.
But the position is worse than that. It is not just that the tax relief ends up in the wrong pocket; it is that the rest of the tax paying community has to face the bill because the Government are raising a given amount of revenue. Much may be given away in those generous
944
schemes —and they have been invented by every political party and by people who belong to no political party. Indeed, as soon as you allow a long enough period of time to elapse, every absurdity is trundled forward by some fundamental thinker as the latest gimmick that he wants to see introduced into the tax system.
Every government have to raise a given amount of revenue. If they do not raise it from one group of taxpayers, they have to raise it from the general body of taxpayers. That is why, with Mr. Edward Heath, as he then was, later with Sir Geoffrey Howe (now my noble and learned friend Lord Howe) and then, with my noble friend Lord Lawson, we tried to get rid of those complications and bring down the general rate of taxation imposed on the body of taxpayers generally.
My next point is one that was raised very properly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am provoked to raise it today because my noble friend Lord Henley said that what was being done was the most radical overhaul since the introduction of PAYE I was personally involved in the introduction of PAYE. Therefore, I propose to tell my noble friend something about it. It was the most important step ever taken in income tax since the days of Mr. William Pitt. But, more. than that, it is the bedrock on which the whole of the tax. system of this country rests.
If one looks at the Act which introduced it—namely, the Income Tax (Employments) Act 1943—in will be seen that it extends to six pages, plus six pages of schedule. The following year there was another Act called the Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Act 1944 which extended the system a little further. However, the part that actually dealt with PAYE consisted of one clause running to half a page. Therefore, we have the most important development in the whole field of taxation in this country which took 10 or, at the most, 15 pages of legislation. But here today we have my noble friend on the Front Bench telling us that we have the introduction of self-assessment on businesses—a very good thing; indeed, I do not dispute it at all, because I am dealing with the question of style of legislation—occupying no less than 75 pages. That is only the beginning. It will be amended next year, the year after and so on ad infinitum.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, seemed to base his philosophy on the words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies, I mean Rhys-Davies—
Noble Lords: Rice!
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful. It was, indeed, Rice because it is spelt R-I-C-E. support of his argument, the noble Lord quoted Miss Ran—I mean, Mandy Rice-Davies. However, I propose, if I may, to quote a somewhat higher authority, with the following words:
"There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised,. or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted".
Those words come from the preface to The Book of Common Prayer. A more apt description of the state of our tax system could not be found anywhere.
The function of a tax system is twofold: it is to raise revenue to meet the expenditure of government and it is

945
to ensure that that revenue is raised in a manner which is fair to the citizens who contribute towards it. In so doing, it is essential that the system should be simple, straightforward, clear, transparent and "understanded of the people". Our present system has none of those virtues. Sooner or later, someone else will have to take up the baton and run in order to clean up, to reform and to revise the whole system. It will not be done by the present Government because they have other considerations on their mind. However, it will have to be done. Until it is done, we have nothing to do but to hope and pray that never again do we see the like of this year's Finance Bill extending to 462 pages. That is why I base my argument on The Book of Common Prayer.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for referring us once again to the introduction of PAYE. He did so in most modest terms. If my memory serve me correctly, the Bill concerned could be purchased from Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the equivalent of 12½ pence. Today's Bill will cost £30 for those who are under the impression that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Times move on !
I do not propose to go as far back in time as did the noble Lord. I wish to deal with the period relating to the Labour Government which was displaced in 1979. I refer in particular to the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. When I was not in the European Parliament or elsewhere, I sat on the government Benches opposite. I recall that the basic attacks which were made against the Government were two-fold. First, there was the adverse balance of payments. I well recall the time when we had an adverse balance of payments of some £300 million. That was reckoned to be catastrophic. The figure was announced before an election but afterwards it was discovered that the figure was in surplus and a correction was announced. The balance of payments which existed then was minuscule compared with that which we have today. The attacks made upon the then Labour Government by both the Conservative Party, which was in opposition, and by the press then supporting it, were laid large in black type as being a national catastrophe.
I mention the matter purely because, apart from my noble friend Lord Eatwell, no one has mentioned the present balance of payments and balance of trade position. It is a time bomb on which the country is now sitting. During the past 10 years alone the adverse balance of payments on visible account has been £142 billion. That is after taking into account excess exports, which is not a pleasant but a descriptive term to use, arising from a bonus in North Sea oil. In balance of payment terms, that gave us an additional credit of some £50 billion. After 10 years, we are now sitting on an accumulative deficit of some £142 billion on visible trade, or £80 billion taking into account invisible earnings. Today, if there is a monthly adverse balance in visible trade of less than £1 billion it is reckoned to be almost heaven-like.
946
I must warn the House that this cannot go on indefinitely. It may be the great unmentionable but someone had to mention it sooner or later. I say to those who have certain affections for the European Community and the benefits that we derive from it that our adverse visible balance of trade with the Community during the same 10 years has been no less than £72 billion. But that is not a matter for debate this afternoon.
That massive deficit in our overseas trade is reflected in a number of ways in our domestic economy. Indeed, the import penetration, in particular in the field of manufacturing, has deteriorated sharply during the past 10 or 15 years. We are now in a position where, in balance of payment and trade terms, we are in so much debt that the only reason why a crisis has not eventuated is that if our creditors tried to exert undue pressure they would probably fall themselves. That is not a pleasant position for this country to be in. It rests on the confidence of our creditors in the abilities of this country to be able to extricate itself from the admitted mess in which it has been for the past two or three years.
How is that confidence to be restored? One of the objectives that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was the maintenance of sound finance. If sound finance means anything at all it certainly means that all wasteful expenditure should be avoided. I am sure that in that I shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Obviously, he would prefer to have the levels of public expenditure brought down, but that is another matter. However, I am sure that he and most Members of the House will agree that waste in government spending must be drastically reduced. What will our overseas creditors say when they see that, in terms of expenditure or loss of revenue, we are spending more than £20 billion on maintaining unemployment at its existing level ? I shall have a little more to say about that.
In turning to the second of the basic attacks, I remember the time when my party sat on the Benches opposite. My Government were called "the party of unemployment" when unemployment was at 1,300,000. In all the past 15 years of Conservative Government, which was elected on the basis of the slogan "Labour Isn't Working" and pictures of a queue of unemployed, the unemployment figure has never come within shouting distance of the one that they inherited. Even their own figure has been manipulated downwards, as Mr. Alan Clark reminded us in his memoirs.
I shall not bother to remind your Lordships of the various fiddles which took place. Mr. Clark enumerated them and if the Minister wants further particulars he can find them in the research section of the Library in another place. They are revealed in some detail in graphical form. But there is waste there. Steps taken to reduce unemployment could help to restore public finances and the whole atmosphere which should pervade this country in its everyday economic life. Unemployment is a great waste indeed.
However, there are other items that are rarely mentioned at all—the actual waste which is almost deliberately caused in Whitehall or by Ministers not exercising the proper degree of control which they

947
should exercise. There is the example of the £40 million that has been wasted in the National Health Service by, in some cases, corrupt practices within the new quangos. For example, there are the write-offs that have been made on the privatisation of nationally owned industries—sound financial practice by means of sweeteners—meaning write-offs of indebtedness to the tune of some £7 billion. Under the auspices of the Auditor General we have been given several instances of assets being sold to private interests at well below their ordinary market value.
In another field, there is a tolerance of waste of the money which comes directly out of the pockets of the British taxpayer. For example, there is a supine assent by the Government to grossly excessive expenditure by the European Parliament in Strasbourg and in Brussels, where some £500 million has been spent quite unnecessarily with a rental charge, which is part borne by the British taxpayer, of some £40 million per year.
There is a continued tolerance to a situation in which the United Kingdom is required to provide, out of the funds provided by taxpayers, an average of £2.2 billion into Community funds after all receipts. And yet we simper in the Council of Europe, trying to hang on by our fingernails to the lower reaches of the top table on the supposition that we must remain at the heart of Europe. All those are matters of waste which amount cumulatively to billions of pounds.
If proper economies were made undoubtedly there could be a saving in public expenditure and a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement. I am being kind to the noble Lord and I shall not refer to today's report from the Auditor General about the excessive expenditure and over-runs of cost in the Ministry of Defence amounting to £955 million. Perhaps that can be the subject of debate at a later stage.
However, I am bound to refer to the most extraordinary expenditure of all, which is not really guaranteed to enhance our standing in the world of business outside. We learn that the Government spent some £575 million on the employment of consultants from which, according to the Financial Times, a benefit was received of £7.7 million.
One can understand that, in certain specialist spheres, it is wise to take outside advice, consider it, bring it forward, debate it and so on. There is nothing inherently wrong in that. But management consultants were employed. Why is that? The Government want to find out where there is inefficiency in the Civil Service machinery which they control. What are Ministers for? They should be leaders of men. Whether they be male or female, they should know exactly how their departments function. Instead of that, the Government have been so obsessed in terms of time with concocting new ideologies that they do not have the time to do what they are there for; that is, to manage.
We had an example of that at Question Time yesterday when my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn asked a Question about the Transport Research Laboratory. What was the Government's reply? They took the advice of KPMG Peat Marwick and they took the advice that ownership did not matter very much. That is why they decided to change it. That
948
addiction to calling in consultants to advise on every aspect of internal government affairs betrays an intellectual laziness and a. leadership incompetence by those who should know very much better.
The country knows, by and large, that at the moment we have no government at all with a central purpose. We have a government composed of Ministers who do their jobs but there is no central direction, no sense of purpose and no projection of a message which will inspire the country towards greater efforts. Instead of that, there is a miserable clique which is bent by taxation by other means, to divide the British people even more by giving to those who have and even taking away from the poor some of the little that they have. This Government demand some confidence in them, but there is no government at all. The quicker that the present shadow of a government give way to people who have it in their power, intellect and purpose to govern in the interests of the whole country, then so much the better it will be.
1.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, obviously enjoyed himself. The House always, in a light-hearted way, I think, enjoys his speeches. But his attempt to turn the debate into a straight party political contest is a pity. Whether one agrees or disagrees with parts of the Finance Bill —and I disagree with quite a lot of it—it should be discussed as a policy matter generally, and not as a great conflict between government and opposition.
I listened to the noble Lord with interest. I express the hope that my noble friend Lord Henley, in his reply, will answer the specific points which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made as regards alleged extravagance. Certainly, two or three of the points he made suggest excessive expenditure, and unless they are contradicted I believe that public opinion outside may well accept that. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will deal fully and effectively, as he always does, with those points.
I hope—I say this with all humility—that when my noble friend Lord Henley replies, he will do what he did not do when he opened the debate; that is, express some small measure of regret as regards the arrangements made for the debate. I hope he will give an indication that in future the Government will see to it that the Finance Bill is debated in a convenient and easy manner and that we are not subjected, when we wish to debate it, to the problems to which we have been subjected today.
To take this immense Bill—both in importance and bulk—on a Friday immediately before a Bank Holiday is an unfortunate choice. But what is really indefensible is to expect your Lordships to discuss so enormous a Bill when it is made available only a day and a half before the debate. That is really not good parliamentary practice and it is not fair to the House. I hope that my noble friend will say something about the Government's intentions for the future. I hope that he may even express a measure of regret that your Lordships have been exposed to the very real difficulties that have occurred in relation to this debate.

949
Apart from that, the debate has been of very great interest. I am particularly happy to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, because he will remember—as hardly anyone else in the House will remember—that a very long time ago, in the year of grace 1951, I succeeded him as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, is, I believe, the senior ex-Treasury Minister here this afternoon. He has had great experience over a very long period of time of the handling of national finances and of the operation of the Treasury.
The Bill, I am afraid, involves increases in taxation. That was inevitable because of the difficulties of the balance of payments and the heavy charges we still have to pay by way of the borrowings that have taken place, but also—if your Lordships will allow me to say so —because the Government have not been as strict on public expenditure as many of us think they could be. In particular, the waste of money on legal aid is very difficult to defend. Despite what I know have been gallant efforts by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the cost of legal aid has steadily risen. There are suggestions that the collapse of the prosecution over drugs the other day will add substantially to what was already a quite substantial figure. It really is up to the Government to take a grip on expenditure of that kind which, however meritorious it may be in some degree, has never been an essential part of our social structure and is in the present situation, I am sure, excessive.
There are a number of areas—the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to whom I listened with interest referred to them —where expenditure has been allowed to go too high. That compels, unfortunately, increases in the rate of tax in order to keep within limits the borrowing which the state has to undertake. The increases in tax are, I think, unhappy ones. I do not like at all the increases that are being made. They are the result of the failure to restrain expenditure. It is a great pity, it seems to me, that they have occurred.
The air passenger duty seems a most unhappy tax to impose. First of all, it seems to discriminate against air travel. One does not pay tax on a ticket by boat, by train or by coach but one will, in future, if the flight originates in this country, pay a small, but appreciable, tax on one's air passenger fare. That seems a dangerous precedent because air travel—I have some experience as a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority—is (I deliberately put it this way) a volatile affair. If airlines are discouraged from using British airports they can quickly divert to France, Holland, Belgium or Germany. It will be dangerous if this tax, which at the moment is relatively small, is allowed to continue. I am sure that in future years some Chancellor will say, "We will put a bit more on this". Noble Lords who have served at the Treasury will know that that is the way things happen. It is a great pity that we should initiate a tax of this sort. I hope that I shall be given some reassurance on the matter.
Then there are the increases in VAT, particularly on domestic fuel. The effect on quite a number of people will be harsh. It is significant perhaps that the coming into force of VAT on fuel almost immediately coincided
950
with cold weather. That imposes a good deal of hardship on people of limited means who find difficulty raising sufficient money to pay a quite substantial tax. It is an unhappy tax. I say that although in general I very much agree with the Government's approach, which is that if one has to raise taxes at all one should raise indirect rather than direct taxes.
Then there is the curious little tax—the insurance premium tax. Again, it looks to me like an insidious start to what may be a growing tax. It adds, of course, to the cost of insurance and is a discouragement to those who may wish, for good, prudential reasons, to have a good insurance policy.
The increases in tax are, it seems to me, unhappy. I am not at all happy that we should be enacting them. I am the more disappointed because the general economic picture, which one normally discusses at the time of the Finance Bill, is so encouraging. There is no question that our economy is much the most effective in Europe. There is a considerable contrast between the way unemployment here is falling and the way prices are being kept under control, and what is happening to our European friends. We have the lowest number of industrial disputes in this country that we have ever had since records were started in 1891. Our economy is working smoothly and effectively. The Government have so much to their credit and there is so much being done that is encouraging that I, for one, am sorry about having to add a measure of criticism because of what seem to me rather unnecessary increases and innovating of taxes.
If the Government had been able to pursue slightly stricter controls over expenditure—in the direction which I mentioned and in other directions—it does not seem to me that it would have been necessary to introduce these additional taxes. If that had been so, people of my kind of view would have been absolutely wholehearted in enthusiasm for what the Government are doing. As it is we very much admire the improvements which are being effected in the economy and profoundly hope that the increases in taxes will not adversely affect them. I support the Government in general in what they are doing. But I say to them, "Please, in future, do not start adding new taxes. If you feel the balance requires it, please take it out the other way by cutting the less important expenditure."
1.19 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I can at least agree that neither of us ever introduced a Finance Bill of either 400 pages or even 400 clauses. This Finance Bill, however long it is, and Budget come before us in a year in which the Government have inflicted on the country a £46 billion budget deficit, a £10 billion or so balance of payments deficit and 2.75 million unemployed all at the same time.
There are two causes of that budget deficit. One is our deplorably high unemployment. The Red Book shows total social security spending at £62 billion this year, of which about one-third is due to unemployment. One cannot eliminate the budget deficit until one has reduced unemployment to tolerable levels.

951
The second cause, seldom mentioned and not mentioned yet in this debate, is the reckless tax cuts for the benefit of the very rich made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in the Budgets of 1988 and 1989. In his candid and in many ways excellent book, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, admits giving away £6.5 billion of revenue in those two Budgets, which in terms of present money values would be approximately £8 billion. If those cuts had not been made and if the economy were running at full capacity, there would now be no budget deficit and no PSBR. That is a solemn thought.
Why is it that we still have 2.75 million unemployed? The first reason is the over-valued exchange rate imposed on us in order to join the disastrous ERM in 1990 and, secondly and more generally, the excessively deflationary interest rate policies which have been followed since. In the mere two years during which we were members of the ERM, unemployment increased by 1.25 million. Within three months of liberation from the ERM in 1992 unemployment began to fall, although very slowly, as the exchange rate became more competitive. But in recent months the exchange rate has been creeping up again. That, together with higher taxes and, in my opinion, excessively high interest rates, is holding back recovery to the present painfully slow rate of falling unemployment. At the present rate it will take something like five years for unemployment to fall even below 1 million.
Meanwhile our GNP is running at about £100 billion a year below what full capacity would provide. We are still losing capacity for lack of demand and cutting crucial public services because of alleged lack of resources. In those circumstances a Bank of England interest rate of 5.25 per cent. is, in my view, much too high. It was only as recently as the late 1950s that a then Governor of the Bank of England described a 5.5 per cent. rate as a crisis rate, that is to say, one which was exceptionally high. Indeed, some of us forget that from 1932 to 1952 the bank rate stood consistently at 2 per cent. Those were all years of recovery. For those who believe in Victorian values, like perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and for those who believe in trade cycles it is worth recalling that the Victorian trade cycle never started to recover when the bank rate was above 3 per cent., yet now we have come to regard 5.25 per cent. as a very low figure.
Of course lower interest rates would tend to lower the sterling exchange rate, but that is precisely what we need. Indeed, here at last is a virtuous circle which works in our favour. Not merely the ERM fiasco, however, but the whole UK economic story since 1945 show that a competitive exchange rate is the prime necessity for success in the UK economy. That is not surprising since the exchange rate affects directly every firm which exports and every firm which competes with imports. A competitive exchange rate is also the only way in any short period of time to correct our alarmingly large balance of payments deficits.
We are also told that our troubles are due to a world recession, resurrecting the belief of the 1920s and earlier that recessions are mysterious, inexorable visitations from heaven. But there is not a world recession. There is at present only a European recession. The United
952
States, with low interest rates, is growing rapidly, and so are most of the countries of eastern Asia. But western Europe has become a pool of stagnant depression, with ever rising unemployment at home. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has grasped that point. It is a real pleasure to find oneself in agreement with the noble Lord.
Yet 1992 and 1993, according to the propaganda, were to be the great years of the single market and unprecedented prosperity. Some noble Lords may remember the notorious Cecchini. Report which emanated from Brussels and said that the single market would deliver 5 million extra jobs in western Europe. In fact, in the years so far of the single market and the ERM there has been an increase throughout the so-called European Union area of 5 million, not in employment but in unemployment, in just those years. The total is now approaching 20 million.
Unemployment is now around 12 per cent. and rising in Germany, France, Spain and Italy. In Germany it is over 4 million, and if the absurd monetary rules laid down in the Maastricht Treaty were really imposed it would soon rise to 5 million. It is perhaps worth recording that in January 1933 it took an unemployment rate of 6 million to bring Hitler to power. Indeed, a combination of manhood suffrage and modern mass elections and extreme deflationary policies tend to bring extremist governments to power. We have seen that happen in the past two years in both Italy and Russia.
The so-called recession which the West has suffered in the past few years is not a mysterious economic phenomenon visited upon us; it is the consequence of the revival since the 1960s of all the old deflationary dogmas of the pre-1929 world, now popularly labelled monetarism. The effect of those ideas is graphically illustrated by the UK experience since 1945. If one takes the years from 1945 to 1970, when at least attempts were being made to ensure adequate demand for our economy, real growth in the UK averaged 2.8 per cent. a year. Since 1970, with high interest rates and monetary and budgetary squeezes, real growth has averaged 1 9 per cent. a year. It follows that if we had had the same growth since 1970 as we had from 1945 to 1970 our real GDP now would be 18 per cent. higher than it is. That represents something like an extra £125 billion a year in national income.
The full absurdity of those deflationary dogmas has reached its zenith in two interesting documents. The first is the detailed financial rules in the Maastricht Treaty on deficits, the price level and so on. The second is a sentence in the Government's own Red Book this year which says with a kind of sublime simplicity:
"It is the role of monetary policy to deliver low inflation'".
That is page 15 of the Red Book. That implies that there is some magic trick by which a central bank can achieve low inflation without affecting any of the other sections of the economy—production, employment, investment and the rest. Unfortunately, in the real world, unless production is increasing as fast as pay rates, there must be a dilemma—we should not try to assume it away —between higher unemployment and higher prices. A narrow concentration on the price level alone would

953
wreak havoc in the real economy. Indeed, zero inflation —we sometimes hear it talked about in this country—would probably require 5 million unemployed.
Central bankers are able and devoted. Many are extremely clever individuals. But they are particularly prone to a rather narrow vision, partly because it thrives among those whose working lives consist of juggling with money figures on paper, seldom encountering the real world of production and employment, and partly because central bankers have been unfortunately led to believe that high inflation would be blamed on them whereas unemployment can be conveniently blamed on someone else. Hence they are almost always opposed to lower interest rates and feel bound to issue frequent warnings about the perils of inflation—in particular at times like the present when there are none. Our own plain-speaking Mr. Eddie George is not altogether immune from that contagion.
What is needed now, especially in the UK, is a more balanced and more moderate economic strategy. The object of economic policy, after all, is the highest possible use of capacity in producing goods and services which people want, not the enforcement of some arbitrary, selected value of the currency. In the UK, now wobbling between stagnation and revival, in addition to the supply side measures—they are necessary but they are not enough in themselves if the demand is not there —we need a decisive cut in interest rates, a free movement of the exchange rate to competitive levels, a release of funds for public investment, particularly in house building, and no more tax increases until recovery is in full swing.
1.33 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that economic pundits from all sections of the financial world got the recession wrong. The depth of the recession was not realised and, like other countries, we are suffering the effects of it.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in 1979 we had overseas debts to the IMF. When my noble and learned friend Lord Howe was Chancellor he had to increase taxes. That was very unpopular at the time but successive Conservative Governments reduced those taxes. Today we are in a similar position, not through overseas debts but through the recession. We are stuck with what was projected—a £50 billion PSBR, which is roughly 8 per cent. of GDP. That is far too high to be sustained. The sum has now been readjusted and is about £46 billion. But £46 billion is still far too high.
What will be the effects of the Finance Bill? What is the state of the economy at present? We all know that unemployment is down; inflation is down at 2.3 per cent. or thereabouts; interest rates are sustainable with a 5.25 per cent. base rate down from 15 per cent; and the PSBR is down a little. Of the £46 billion PSBR, we should not overlook the fact that some £22 billion of that is capital expenditure. It is not all revenue expenditure. If one looks at earnings, the unit labour cost went up by only 0.2 per cent. That is good. As my noble friend Lord
954
Boyd-Carpenter said, we have had the lowest strike record since 1891, when records were commenced. The CBI and the Institute of Directors are optimistic.
Much play has been made on manufacturing industry, and quite rightly so. Production has gone up 2.4 per cent. or 2.5 per cent. over the past year. Our exports outside the European Community—I shall return to that—compared with a year ago are up some 15 per cent.
When considering the manufacturing base of our economy, it is a mistake to ignore the achievements of the City. In 1992 the City of London produced nearly £19 billion of overseas earnings towards our balance of payments. In 1982 the contribution was £4.6 billion. Everyone knows that as a financial centre the City of London leads the world. We should laud and applaud that; we should not think that it does not matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that there is not a recession throughout the world. I agree with him. But there is certainly a recession in Europe; and that quite obviously will affect our exports to Europe. Without labouring the point, much of the trouble in Europe arose through the reunification of East and West Germany with the exchange rate between the Ostmark and the Deutschmark. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that at the time of reunification, if one could find a buyer for an Ostmark, the exchange rate would probably have been 14 Ostmarks to one Deutschmark. The Chancellor of Germany announced a rate of 1:1 for up to 5,000 and then 1:2 for over 5,000. The East Germans with Ostmarks in their pockets (or under their mattresses, where many of them kept them) soon swapped them.
One factor I like about this Budget and previous Budgets is the emphasis on helping small businesses. Corporation tax, for example, has been reduced from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. It is one of the lowest rates in the European Community. Small businesses corporation tax has gone down from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent. The limit for the small business relief has been increased to a profitability level of £300,000. There is a tapering relief for a level of up to £3 million profit. That is the lowest tax rate for small businesses not only in the European Community but also in the countries of the G7.
Advance corporation tax is a benefit to small businesses. A reduction from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. gives that extra cash flow to the small business. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, many small businesses are profitable but are in dire trouble through their cash flow position because people do not pay their bills on time. I am delighted with the rumour I hear—and I put it no higher than a rumour—that the Treasury is considering how the Government can assist in making firms pay their debts to small businesses. For some time I have advocated that we should have to introduce mandatory interest on debts after the credit limit had expired. In the Budget small businesses have been helped by the reduction in the national insurance contribution.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that since 1979 there has been an increase of 600,000 small businesses, and they are the job creators. They are the firms which will create the jobs. I know a bit about small businesses. I happen to be chairman of a company which one of my

955
sons has set up over the past five years. We have created over 400 new jobs. That can be done. But the cash flow position of some of those firms is so tight that they cannot expand. If they could obtain their money, they could expand.
Let us consider manufacturing, and perhaps we may take the car industry as an example. At Cowley in 1991 one production worker produced 10.4 cars in a year. I have never seen 0.4 of a car, but that is the figure. In 1993 one production worker produced the equivalent of 34 cars; Germany's rate is 30.8. That must help our competitive position.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, say that we must do something about our competitiveness. He went on to talk about workers' rights and no doubt the Social Chapter. If the Social Chapter were ever introduced, our unit costs in production would have to go up and we would lose some of our competitive position. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, also said that it is the rich who get all the benefit. I remind him that in 1979 the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers paid 11 per cent. of the total income tax revenue to the Exchequer. Today, the top 1 per cent. contributes 17 per cent. It is unfair to make comparisons that do not stand up.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that the increase in tax revenues which come from the top 1 per cent. is due to an increase in their productive activity or an increase in their share of pre-tax national income?
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has overlooked one fact. In that top 1 per cent. one must take the revenue that the Exchequer receives from dividends. Dividends have certainly increased since 1979 simply because we have privatised so much. If we lake the privatised industries, for example, at one time most taxpayers were subsidising them. Today, through the corporation tax and ACT on dividends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is collecting money, not paying it out. So we must be careful when we ask who are the people receiving the money. It is tremendous to see the thousands—indeed, millions—of small investors, particularly in the former nationalised industries, and they help the economy.
Perhaps we should also consider the privatised gas industry. In real terms, prices have decreased by 23 per cent. In the electricity industry, they are down by 6 per cent. Consumer spending is increasing slightly. I am delighted that it is not escalating too quickly, because that is the start of a boom; but it is increasing slightly, and that is good.
For the future, the public sector borrowing requirement is bound to decrease because of increased profitability and the deficit between income and expenditure is bound to diminish. Nevertheless, public expenditure must still he kept under control. I urge the Minister to persuade my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if and when public sector borrowing comes down, public expenditure should not go up in proportion but taxation should decrease.
I am delighted that the Government are considering the various extravagances in welfare payments. We read
956
practically daily of people taking money quite illegally out of the welfare budget. They are not taking it from the Government; they are taking it from you and me, the taxpayer. We may soon have to consider the question of national identity cards in order to obviate that kind of racket. In addition, with welfare we must look at the child allowance. I shall not prolong the discussion, but in my view it seems quite illogical to pay someone who is rich a child allowance tax free when they do not need it and in many cases do not want it. However, I do not think that many people send it back.
In conclusion, many noble Lords travel and this country is the envy of our partners in Europe. They see that we have low inflation, falling unemployment and increased production. Consequently, I urge noble Lords not to be too gloomy. Let us not talk Britain down. We have a bright economic future if we stick to our policies with rigid control of public expenditure. In that way we shall improve our position not only in the world but in this country.
1.47 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I am the last of the Back-Bench speakers, and I am certain that both your Lordships and the officers and staff of the House are anxious to set off for their holiday weekend as soon as possible, I shall dispense with my preliminary observations—the overview as it were—and confine myself to two specific matters arising from the Bill.
The first is air passenger duty. I think it is a deplorable innovation, not made any less so by the almost farcical wording of Clauses 29 to 34 inclusive, among others, which read as though they were invented by a satirist intent upon poking fun at bureaucracy. That is not the fault of parliamentary draftsmen, I am sure, but it is inherent in the complexity and the quirky nature of the proposals.
Where is the logic, where is the justice, of taxing one form of travel but not another? Here I find myself in wholehearted agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. How can one defend taxing people of modest means who have saved up for a hard-earned holiday in Benidorm or the Greek islands, while exempting from taxation wealthy individuals travelling in executive jets which hold fewer than 20 passengers?
I now turn to another matter. On 19th March 198.5, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Nigel Lawson, in delivering his Budget speech, spoke about capital gains tax. At cols. 791 and 792 of the Official Report for the other place, he referred to the "acknowledged defects" of the tax, notably,
"its combination of unfairness and complexity".
He agreed that the latter had been somewhat mitigated by his predecessor three years earlier who had introduced indexation relief, but continued by pointing out:
"That relief, valuable though it is … suffers from three serious limitations".
One of them was that indexation does not at present extend to losses. He went on to announce:
"I propose to remove this restriction".
He concluded his remarks on capital gains tax by saying that,

957
"reform of capital gains tax will produce a fairer tax … help the efficient working of the capital markets, relieve the burden on family businesses and encourage risk-taking and enterprise".— [Official Report, Commons, 19/3/85; col. 792.]
I emphasise the "risk-taking and enterprise".
The following day, Mr. Peter Rees, as he then was, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, argued that Labour policies would,
"reproduce here the rigidities and failures of the east European economies".
He went on to claim, referring to the Conservative Government:
"We are trying to fashion a tax system in harmony with the needs of the 20th century, the needs of a more effective economy and the needs of a more mobile and enterprising society".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/3/85; col. 890.]
On 29th April 1985—exactly nine years ago today, as it happens—Mr. John Moore, as he then was, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, argued that,
"The proposal to apply indexation to losses as well as gains will mean another longstanding criticism.
The changes will make the tax much fairer".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/85; col. 104.]
Finally, at Third Reading on 10th July 1985, Mr. Peter Rees once more claimed:
"We are people of warm hearts who are endeavouring to do justice in a complex matter".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/85; col. 1199.]
How curious then that the present Chancellor has decided to reverse that excellent reform—presumably taking the view that cold hearts are better than warm ones; that injustice is as meritorious as the justice commended by Mr. Peter Rees; and that unfairness is as acceptable as the fairness extolled by Mr. John Moore nine years ago today.
The excuse for that is that a handful of companies have found loopholes in the system and are abusing it. If that is the case, then let us by all means plug those loopholes. But let us leave blameless private individuals and trustees alone. The proposal is rather like using a blunderbuss to kill a fly, as the French would say, wounding thousands of innocent people in the process.
It is true that under pressure from the Back-Benchers in another place the Government have agreed to transitional relief for private individuals and trustees. We must be thankful for small mercies. But the long-term effects of this measure will still be malign. They will be bad for the country as a whole, as well as unfair.
The British are constantly accused by economic commentators —with some justice—of short-termism, in contrast with the allegedly virtuous Germans and Japanese, among others, who, we are told, stick with companies through thick and thin, taking a five-year, seven-year or 10-year view in the hope that the company in question will eventually flourish mightily.
But what could be more precisely designed to reinforce the British tendency towards short-termism than the removal of indexation from capital losses? Many first-class engineering firms which are very successful exporters and have greatly helped the British balance of payments nevertheless often go through very sticky patches, and often through no fault of their own. Most will survive and thrive, but some will go under.
958
What incentive is there now to back these firms in preference, let us say, to dull and stolid supermarket chains, if this measure is not reversed?
Many splendid, small emerging companies, bristling with new ideas and new technology need Stock Market backing. Of every 10 such companies it is quite possible that six will thrive but four will go under. So long as one can obtain full relief in real terms on the money lost on the four that go under, one is happy to invest in the struggling, innovative firms, because the real gains that are made on the other six, although taxable, should more than compensate for the losses. But the provisions in this Bill upset that equation and make investing in the techniques and the industries of the future very much less attractive.
If the Government really want to stop tax avoidance, I can suggest a perfect candidate for them. There has been a pernicious proliferation over the past year or so of the phenomenon known as enhanced share dividends. These deprive the Exchequer of vast amounts of tax revenue. They are a nightmare for trustees, who by law are obliged to keep capital and income separate and must balance the conflicting claims of life tenants and remaindermen; and are extremely unfair on people who happen to be temporarily overseas or who are otherwise incapacitated and therefore cannot sign the forms without which they cannot receive the dividends. Furthermore, whatever the gullible may imagine, they are of no long-term benefit whatever to shareholders, who are effectively being paid the enhanced dividends out of their own capital. Let that abuse be dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity, and let full indexation relief on capital losses be restored—at least for individuals and trustees—for the sake of fairness and for the sake of Britain's industrial future.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, one of the pleasures of the debate, for me at least, has been to hear the reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, about his time at the Inland Revenue and the early days of PAYE. Perhaps I may ingratiate myself with him and become an ally—at least in the matter of the size and complexity of this Bill—by modestly claiming once upon a time to have been a tax reformer. When I was a junior Minister in the Treasury a long time ago, I was convinced of the case for getting rid of stamp duty on cheques. Most of us have now forgotten that there ever was one. I found in my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead a receptive Chancellor. There were, however, great hesitations within the Treasury; certainly, the overwhelming official opinion was against any such dangerous change. As I recall, I was able to work out that the total cost to the Exchequer over a full year would be £12.5 million at 1970 prices. So the stamp duty on cheques was got rid of. On that basis, I claim some authority in the matters with which this Bill is concerned.
We were a pretty disciplined lot in the Treasury at that time. Apart from my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, there was the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. We kept in line. It is very different today. Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on not

959
making any speech that I know of outside this House about what the future of his Government ought or ought not to be. We assume, having received this Bill, that there is a harmonious Treasury from time to time. But certainly outside Parliament there is a discordant one. We are always aware of the very natural ambitions of Chancellors; and this Chancellor is not short of an ability to make speeches advocating his case for succeeding John Major at the earliest possible stage—although he does not put it quite that way.
We knew until recently that we had in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a man quite unlike any other Chief Secretary I remember. He also makes speeches, often saying very different things to the Chancellor, because he too wants to succeed John Major, or if not John Major then some other leader of the Conservative Party.
The other day I was surprised to hear the Financial Secretary, Stephen Dorrell, speaking up. The Daily Telegraph said:
"Dorrell sets out his stall in the battle of ideology".
So not only do we have the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary having views about the future of the Government. We also have the Financial Secretary having views. The congratulations that I give to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, are therefore very well deserved in that respect. I must say—although I am not surprised—that the tone of the noble Lord's speech was, if not euphoric, then at least very complacent. I wondered how that speech would go down if it were made, for example, on the streets of Westminster; in the Landon borough of Lambeth; in the London borough of Camden; in Eastleigh, if he would like to show his face there; in Rotherham; or in any other part of our country. I do not believe that there would be a strong sense among the people that things are getting better.
In the end, although they sometimes make mistakes, or so we think, the voters have a very shrewd sense of what is actually happening to their country. The feel-good factor is certainly missing now. Listening to the noble Lord and others on the Government Benches, nobody would think that the two-year recovery to which they frequently refer has seen this Government's standing in the country slip to its lowest possible level. There is deep scepticism about the capacity of the Government to pursue a course that is acceptable to the country. We should get our intimate debate into perspective. The intimacy and perhaps the self-congratulation that we feel are not widely shared outside.
I was very interested in the reception given, I am sure as a result of suggestions made by the Treasury, to the publication on 25th April of the preliminary estimates of GDP for the first quarter of this year. They were accompanied by a quite extraordinary boast—repeated certainly on all the news bulletins I heard—that the recovery had now spread over eight quarters and had lasted longer even than the recession itself. That was the boast. It is a most remarkable recovery which goes on and on, even longer than the recession. I do not believe that a medical doctor would find such a statement very satisfactory. Would he say, "I am telling you, my patient, that although you were in hospital for only three
960
days, it is taking you three months to recover and it may take even longer?" That would not be a cause for congratulation at all. But that is the kernel of the argument which accompanied the preliminary figures for GDP in the first quarter of 1994. The fact is that if we are recovering, we are recovering very slowly from a situation into which this Government plunged us. We must not lose sight of that.
Are we recovering? The phrase I like is one used by the Financial Times. It referred to a "genteel" recovery. By and large that is what we are experiencing. But gentility is fragile. For all the optimism referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, among others, the recovery has been fluctuating for most of the eight quarters to which we now refer and certainly for the past six months. There is a great deal of uncertainty. People hope that things are getting better—indeed we all do —but there is a great deal of uncertainty about whether the recovery is a steady one and where it will get us in the end.
I referred to the preliminary figures for the first quarter's GDP. Other noble Lords have made a distinction between the total figure (and the size of recovery that it suggests) and the figures for manufacturing. We do not have the figures for manufacturing for the first quarter of this year. We shall not have them until 25th May. But if we take the last quarter for which figures are firmly available —the last quarter of 1993—the figure for manufacturing was 2.3 points above the worst quarter but still 4.9 points below the best quarter, which was in 1990. So in manufacturing terms, on the basis of the last complete set of figures, we are only one-third on the way to the complete recovery we want to see. The figures for the construction industry show that the last quarter of 1993 was 15.1 points below the peak of 1990.
There is still a long way to go. We should not exaggerate the optimism. We should not be overconfident about whether the recovery will be completed. And we should bear in mind the feeling in the country where the sense of recovery that the figures seem to show is not widely felt.
There are many other comments that one might have made about the Bill and indeed about the Budget. We could have referred to VAT on domestic fuel. I am not in favour of market pricing if that is the way to reduce the consumption of domestic fuel. given the complications of avoiding the worst burden falling on those who can least afford to pay. It is a very great pity —I think of the Bill which the Government killed in another place—that we are not prepared to spend more. I have in mind what my noble friend Lord Ezra said about the condition of our housing stock. It is a very great pity that out of the total sum of public expenditure we cannot find at least a little more to try to improve energy conservation, particularly in the domestic area. I am not in favour of it but if there is to be VAT on domestic fuel, at least there should be a twin-track. The other part of the track should be expenditure to deal with the problem of energy saving where that expenditure is most needed.
There are other aspects of the Bill which surprise me. There has been no reference I have heard, except in

961
passing by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, if I did not misunderstand him, to the new airport tax. I hope that my remarks will have the full support of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Why do we have an airport tax? I thought that we had got rid of airport taxes and that they remained a third world phenomenon. But in this large Bill we are back to having an airport tax. The Bill states that the tax will be paid by the operator of the aircraft. But we all know that in practice it will fall on the passenger. Certainly the airlines should point out that it is a consequence of this Budget and this Bill.
Before every finance Bill and every Budget there is a time when options are taken. Those options are not simply questions of finding the best way to raise taxation, determining what its incidence will be, and deciding whether it will be direct or indirect and setting its level. It is not only a matter of such questions but of the role and purpose of taxation altogether.
In the first place, a transfer from direct to indirect taxation is inevitably regressive. It has a social consequence. Do we want to move to a more regressive system of taxation in this country? I would very much regret it if that were the established direction in which we were to go. In that respect a regressive taxation system, with more and more transferred to indirect taxation, is evidence of what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said is a Government dedicated to the principle of inequality. That is the underlying ideology—whether of the Chancellor, the Treasury, the Chief Secretary or the Financial Secretary—of this legislation and of the Budget.
I read this morning of a study by Newcastle University. It told an extraordinary story. It said that the life expectancy of some groups of people in Britain had worsened over the past 50 years. It is a startling and depressing story and also a shaming one that the life expectancy of people in this country should fall. Most of the time we have looked back to the early stages of the welfare state and said that life expectancy is rising. Now it is falling. Nobody has ever sought to deny the link between poverty and health. We are now seeing in some parts of the country developments more characteristic of the 1930s than of the 1990s. What does the Finance Bill do for those people? How does the Budget bear on those whose conditions we should be ashamed of? In so far as the ideology can be discerned, we are seeing a turning back of the clock by two generations.
The ultimate test of the Bill will not be the views expressed by your Lordships in this place in three hours today; I can even say that it is not the view that will be taken by those who go to the polls on 5th May and 9th June, although it will be interesting to know what they say about the Bill and the Budget and the Government who inspired them. The test for this and every finance Bill is whether it will improve the condition of our people. Will it improve the condition of Britain? My answer is simple: it will not.
2.10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as always this is an interesting—certainly for me—and fascinating debate. I start my intervention by responding to a remark of the
962
noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I agree with what he said on investment. But with regard to the Treasury building, I must say to him that it has always been a dump. To join those going down memory lane, I remember when I was a young man working in the Treasury that it was widely believed that one member of staff was hired solely to go round all the other departments to see what furniture they were throwing out and to rescue it for the Treasury. Therefore the fact that the Treasury building is falling down does not surprise me at all.
I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made his peace with me by adding to his list" of distinguished people the academic economists present in your Lordships' House. I cannot tell him how deeply hurt I was by the list he gave on Wednesday which omitted us.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the trade cycle. I was wondering when I had last heard that expression. I was taught such a course as a student, but nowadays young people refer to "stochastic fluctuations" and "non-linear dynamics". I shall not waste your Lordships' time by explaining what they are—if I know.
I want to comment briefly on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said on Wednesday. It was not appropriate for me to intervene then. But I too hold views on how we conduct our proceedings on financial and economic matters. My judgment is that the problem has little or nothing to do with Fridays per se. I regard Friday as part of the normal working week and am perfectly happy to come to your Lordships' House and work on a Friday, as everybody else works on Fridays. The problem is a rather different one. It concerns finding enough time generally to debate these matters and not being pressurised to rush them through.
When I mention the topics that I feel we should be discussing within this whole area, it will be realised that we cannot do it. That is what is so upsetting. For example, we have a unified Budget for the first time and should be debating—because that is part of our responsibility—whether it is worth while and what its consequences are. We have not done that. Has it been to the good? We should be discussing taxation and government expenditure per se. But we need separate occasions to deal with those topics. One could go through all sorts of other matters. I should like to discuss specific taxes in detail. But I cannot do that if I want to discuss other matters as well. That is why I am very much on the noble and learned Lord's side. There are other topics—the whole question of the relationship between the Bank of England and the Treasury which has been emerging recently with the publication of those minutes. All those are matters which I believe your Lordships should be able to debate within this general ambit.
We ought not to be put in a position where in order to discuss one topic—in my case I mostly want to talk about macro-economic matters—one cannot then discuss the tax structure, the detail of public expenditure and so on. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has guided us into an area which we ought to pursue further and within which the specific matter of the Finance Bill is neither here nor there. I am willing to nod the Bill through just like that. What I want to do

963
is to contribute to the discussion on the content of the Finance Bill and on the content of the Red Book. We need several days for that and we should not just be pressurised into doing it in a short period of time today. I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will read the various remarks made and that the usual channels will at some time do something about it.
One or two noble Lords have mentioned economic aspects of European Union. That, too, is a matter which I feel it is about time we debated again, including the economic consequences of the social chapter. But because I have to ration myself, I cannot respond to that either today, much as I wish I could.
I start with the Red Book itself which is in a sense the counterpart to the Finance Bill. The vital point about the Red Book is more what it says on taxation than what it says on public expenditure. I know noble Lords opposite are saying that we ought not to raise taxation—that is what they would like—but if they look at the Red Book they will see that it is all about massive increases in taxation, let alone the structure of taxation. It includes the two new taxes. The insurance premium tax will in a couple of years' time be raising £840 million. It will certainly be an important tax. The air passenger duty will raise £350 million, and that figure will presumably rise.
I was horrified when the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, mentioned stamp duty. It was a great triumph on his part to get rid of it. But the Treasury, listening to what he said, will say, "Next year's Red Book could have the re-introduction of stamp duty. We can get a couple of hundred million there just to start with. If we could also have a similar duty on credit card transactions, what limit would there be to the amount we could get in?" So I really was sorry that the noble Lord mentioned that, much as I am envious of him for having achieved the getting rid of it.
The important thing to bear in mind about the Red Book and taxation is that the Government claim that over the next four or five years they will move from the existing budget deficit to about balance. That is what they claim. But what noble Lords should realise is that the current budget deficit is about 8 per cent. of GDP. I choose easy round numbers. The Government are proposing to do that essentially by knocking 4 per cent. off the public expenditure side. But what noble Lords ought to realise is that they are proposing to add another 4 per cent. on the tax side. Whatever else one says—I do not do this solely to pull the legs of noble Lords opposite —this is clearly not merely a tax-raising Budget but a Budget with a view to taxes as a share of GDP rising for the foreseeable future, defined as the future that the Red Book looks at. Therefore, that is a most important aspect of what is happening in terms of government policy. Those noble Lords who believe that the budget deficit has to be got rid of either have to look at something quite different on the public expenditure side or realise that we are entering a new era of permanently even higher taxation.
I wish to make a few remarks about the recession and the cost that it imposed on us. My noble friend Lord Eatwell started on it but the scale of the loss from the recession is prodigious. One should not ignore that. If
964
we accept that output at present is back to where it was at the previous peak—I am willing to accept that the statistics show that—that is not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is to choose a base year—whether it is 1989 or some such year—extrapolate from that base year on the underlying rate of growth of the economy—2.5 per cent. per annum—and say that the minimum test of economic success would be, "When will we get back on to that track?"
Let us again take easy numbers and express the hope that we get back on track by the end of the century. That is back to where we would have been if we had not got into the mess in the first place. The economy would have to grow from now on at 4.5 to 5 per cent. per annum to get back on the track that we would have been on if the Government had not got the thing wrong in the first place. That actually underestimates the catastrophe because throughout the period until we get back on track we are, by definition, below track, so all the lost output in the intervening period will never be recovered.
That is the price we have paid essentially for government economic folly. It is of the Government' s own making. Noble Lords will be aware that I am the least political person in your Lordships' House, but it is impossible not at least to note that there seems to be some connection between that economic folly and the desire to create a pre-election boom. It is an hypothesis. One could set it as an exam question to students and ask them to discuss it. The lesson to learn is, "If you are serious about sustained growth, do not engage in that kind of pre-electoral activity".
Another topic I wish to refer to was raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. It is a matter which worries me even more. I refer to the position as regards the balance of payments. I believe that my noble friend referred largely to the balance of trade. I shall look similarly at the balance of payments and the current account. The cumulative deficit since this Government came to power is about £70 billion. There were early years of surplus followed by a considerable number of years of deficit.
That £70 billion very much biases the argument in the Government's favour because that sum includes the surplus on oil account. But since oil is a wasting asset, strictly speaking it should be left out of the calculation or, alternatively, we ought to add a figure to the deficit to finance the replacement of oil in the future when it runs out. Nonetheless, even with the £70 billion deficit, that implies a most serious problem for the future because essentially it is a run-down in our net overseas assets. Even if it were financed at an interest rate as low as 5 per cent.—which I regard as a ludicrously low figure to take, but I do so because I find it easier to divide by 20 than by some other number—we are talking about a permanent worsening of the invisible part of the current account of £3.5 billion; namely, one half per cent. of current GDP.
That too underestimates the problem because the deficit is still there and the position is deteriorating. If anyone were to believe that we could get back on track at 4.5 per cent. per annum per growth, then we would al l know that the balance of payments would deteriorate further. In other words, one of the consequences of the

965
profligacy of this Government which is not unconnected with the rise in consumer spending in our economy, has been to reverse what we all thought we were going to get; namely, the abolition of the balance of payments constraint on growth. We thought that we were going to get rid of that because of North Sea oil. The consequences of the Government's activities are that they have made the position even worse than when they started.
Noble Lords can see that I have already thrown away about half the number of pieces of paper that I had. I now make my final, but not too short, comments. I wish to say a few words about full employment as a policy objective. For most of my time as an economist it was taken for granted that full employment was both desirable and feasible. It was also thought to be of necessity a policy aim because the free market, left to itself, would lead to chronic unemployment. Certainly the experience of the economy under this Government has provided ample confirmation of this last proposition.
No better evidence can be cited than the fact that since 1979—and this is a point which my noble friend Lord Bruce pointed out—the lowest level of unemployment reached has been 1.7 million. The fall from 2.9 million to 2.7 million this year, with a possible further fall to 2.5 million in 1995, has been portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as a triumph. My Lords, to come down from 2.9 million to 2.5 million is a triumph? Nothing could more clarify how we have failed in terms of economic policy than to say that that is a triumph.
I said that full employment is the right objective. My views have not changed. It is of course easier to destroy jobs than it is to create them and that again we have seen. But what is interesting is that some of the experience of this Government over the past few years shows that an expansionary policy does work. This Government have bungled things, but even on their experience it is apparent that the economy does work in a straightforward Keynsian manner and would continue to do so if "cycles"—if I may use that word—were not added to the economy by an unscrupulous desire to win elections at any cost.
What is essential is, first, a commitment to the objective —that is the first thing—and secondly, an approach to it which is gradual and not over-hasty by way of expansion. As we have experienced, a too rapid boom has to be reversed; but a carefully controlled expansion can be sustained almost indefinitely. I hasten to add that I do not disagree with those who say—one or two noble Lords have said this—that in an era of rapid structural change, a macro-economic policy of full employment must be supplemented by a micro one based on investment in human capital, such as training and education. The point is that they are complementary, not substitutes.
The benefits of such policies are obvious. Several noble Lords—not merely on this side of the House—have pointed out how much the budget deficit would improve if it were not financing unemployment benefit and if the unemployed were working and paying taxes.
966
That is the rather cynical view of why we want to get rid of unemployment. There is also the straight view that the unemployed would be producing some output.
There are two other aspects of the unemployment problem which I cannot leave aside even though this is an economics debate. First, there is the social side. The Government persist in denying common sense when they reject the proposition that unemployment is conducive to crime and social unrest. Idle hands do make light work for the devil, and I fail to understand how noble Lords on the Government side reject that view. Of course, it may well be that some people are more prone to crime than others, but what they do must be dependent on the circumstances in which they find themselves. I do not say that to justify criminal activity. I stand second to none in my condemnation of it; I say it as an explanation of why we see so much criminal activity in our society.
Finally, I come to unemployment as a moral question. I cannot disguise my distaste at the Chief Secretary to the Treasury allegedly representing the opinions of the quiet majority last week. I think that he is mistaken in what he said and I do not think that he represents the views of many people in our society. In particular, he is mistaken in his assessment of his fellow citizens: that they would rather be on social security than have jobs. He simply cannot know such people or have any direct experience of the anguish that unemployment causes to the unemployed.
If I may repeat a point that I made last week: the Second World War was not fought to enable Ministers to make such snide comments today. Those who died thought that their colleagues were going back to a more decent world in which there would be jobs for all. I should add that the Tories of those days were as much of that opinion as the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. I conclude by saying that if there is one thing above all that needs to be done in this country (which I do not see this Bill doing anything for) it is the restoration of full employment.
2.27 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I hoped, I think we have had a very full and interesting debate; and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, made quite clear, we have been assisted on this occasion—I failed to mention them on Wednesday—by the two trained economists, both of whom were signatories of that famous letter to The Times back in 1981.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I mentioned three.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble and learned Lord said. I am not sure if I spotted the name of the third distinguished economist among those who signed that letter, but I notice that the Opposition Front Bench are pointing to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, so I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was a signatory of that letter.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I did not sign any such letter; but I wholly agreed with it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was simply pointing out that my noble friend Lord Jay is a very distinguished economist as well as being a distinguished figure in the world of politics.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I notice that he was wise not to sign the letter.
As I have said, I think we have had a very good debate. There are a number of matters to which I should like to reply in due course. Obviously, bearing in mind the lime and the hour, it will be difficult for me to reply to all the points that have been put. Many of those points deserve a much fuller and more detailed reply than is necessarily advisable in a debate of this sort. Certainly, I shall offer to write to any noble Lord on some of the more detailed points that have been raised.
I shall start with a point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, by other speakers, and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the arrangements for today's debate and those as regards discussing the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Obviously, the matter was discussed at some length on Wednesday when my noble friend the Leader of the House moved his Business Motion. On that occasion, my noble friend made it clear—as indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Peston—that this is the first year in which we are being asked to consider the Finance Bill in the Spring, following a unified Budget in November. I can repeat the assurances that I think my noble friend gave on that occasion; namely, that we will review the whole unified process later this year.
I believe that most noble Lords, and most commentators, welcome the creation of a unified Budget. However, the actual process deserves review. I shall certainly repeat the comments made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and other speakers. Those comments can certainly be taken on board by my noble friend the Leader of the House, and others, when we consider the arrangements for discussing the Bill in the House.
I believe that I should, like my noble friend the Leader of the House, remind my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that we have discussed such Bills on a Friday on many other occasions. Again, we have discussed them at relatively short notice. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made quite clear, it is not that onerous a burden to be here discussing a Bill on a Friday. I certainly have no great objection to doing so. I see that my noble friend wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was not so much concerned with the Friday aspect as with discussing a Bill—in this case, a massive Bill—which one has had for less than 48 hours.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, I appreciate my noble friend's anxieties. However, as my noble friend the Leader of the House made clear on Wednesday, there have been many other occasions when we have had to discuss a Finance Bill at relatively short notice; indeed, we have done so quite often, with only one or two days' notice. I can only apologise to my noble friend for the fact that he has had so little notice on this
968
occasion. However, the mere fact that the debate is being held on a Friday should not be of any great anxiety.
I shall, first, deal with a few more detailed points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, I understand, would like to leave the House early. The noble and learned Lord made two particular points. The first dealt with the question of whether we should split the Bill and have a separate tax management Bill. I must say that I am not completely convinced that that would have any significant advantage; indeed, it would obviously require a second slot in the parliamentary timetable. I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged. Does the Minister accept that a good deal of the Bill deals with tax management—in fact, whole schedules—and that, if it was separated into a supply Bill and a tax management Bill, your Lordships could contribute significantly to the improvement of the tax management part?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note the point made by the noble and learned Lord. However, I was trying to say that I am not persuaded by those advantages. As I said, it would require a second slot in the parliamentary timetable of both Houses. We are not persuaded that Parliament would wish to scrutinise more technical tax proposals at the possible expense of other legislation. Moreover, it is not easy to distinguish between major tax issues and minor technical ones. I also believe that the case for splitting the Finance Bill rests very much on the view that the present procedures do not allow sufficient time for consideration of tax matters. We believe that there is time at present.
The noble and learned Lord also raised the question of tax avoidance and repeated a call that he made to me on another occasion—I believe it was during a Question Time. On that occasion, I wrote to the noble and learned Lord saying, again, why I was not completely happy with his ideas—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if I did not mention the Minister's courtesy in replying to me, I was very much remiss. I should like to make good that omission now.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord certainly did mention it. I was about to say that I cannot remember whether I offered to put a copy of the letter in the Library. However, I shall certainly make it available to other noble Lords by doing so now, rather than replying in detail at the Dispatch Box.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield, and other speakers, referred to the length and complexity of the Bill. My noble friend referred to the Act which introduced PAYE in 1943 with a mere six pages and referred to the present Bill as being "monstrous" in a government dedicated to deregulation. I must accept that the Bill is, as I put it in my opening speech, somewhat lengthy. The tax system must necessarily address the increasing complexities of the modern world. In recent years, the tax system has gone through a process of modernisation in order to keep pace with rapid changes, in particular in the

969
commercial world. I referred, for example, to the payment of people in gold bullion. It was not used in 1943 as a method of avoiding national insurance contributions. What has crept in since is the kind of situation that one might look at. The measures in the Bill which put in place a new and coherent regime for taxing financial instruments of that kind are one example of that necessary process of modernisation.
I assure my noble friend that wherever possible we shall continue to abolish taxes. Indeed, he referred to our noble friend Lord Lawson and our noble and learned friend Lord Howe who abolished many taxes. One thinks of car tax, capital transfer tax, development land tax, investment income surcharge and so forth. I am sure that, where possible, my right honourable friend will take those matters on board.
With reference to these particular tax matters, I wish to make one or two points on the proposals referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, relating to the restriction of indexation of capital losses. It is worth remembering that the United Kingdom was the only major economy to allow indexation to create or to increase a capital loss. I understand that other countries which considered doing so were deterred by our experience. In practice, indexation of losses gave rise to widespread avoidance of capital gains tax. It is in this context that my right honourable friend believes that a proposal of this kind is justified. Indeed, that avoidance went wider than companies. An example relating to individual investors is the type of security which produces an income stream but is guaranteed not to rise in capital value. These securities were marketed partly on the basis of the allowable loss to which they gave rise. We hope that ultimately it will prevent an expensive form of abuse, protecting something of the order of £3 billion-worth of tax revenue by the end of the decade. It will certainly contribute to the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement.
I now turn to the economy. The Government's overall economic objective is to promote sustained economic growth and rising living standards. We certainly do not wish to see the boom and bust to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. I refer the noble Lord to the words used in explaining our economic policy over the medium term in the Red Book, which refers to the undesirability of the sharp fluctuations in economic activity. We believe that the tight control of inflation and sound public finances are essential preconditions for this. I certainly beg to differ with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, on inflation.
It is a measure of our success that we have had the longest period with headline retail price inflation below 3 per cent. since the start of the 1960s. Underlying inflation is at its lowest level since 1967 and well within the 1 to 4 per cent. target range. That testifies to the success of the Government's new monetary framework. It also shows that, as the economy continues to recover, inflationary pressures must remain subdued. It would not be right to suggest that they might be dead, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, implied.
The other vital element to sustained economic recovery is sound public finances. In November my
970
right honourable friend the Chancellor took the view that the size of the Government's borrowing requirement had become the biggest threat to recovery. The budget measures that we have debated this morning were designed to tackle just that. The November Budget acted on both sides of the account, cutting spending as well as raising taxes.
Perhaps I may say a few words about taxes. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who said that our tax system is unfair. He implied that it penalises the poor and benefits the rich. We have cut the high marginalised rates of personal tax which discouraged hard work and enterprise under the last Labour Government. The noble Lord will be aware that the basic rate has come down from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent. and the top rate has come down from 83 per cent., with 98 per cent. on investment income, to 40 per cent. As a result of those reforms, which were consistently opposed by the party opposite, people now keep more of every pound which they earn or save.
Further, in 1992, the Government introduced a new income tax band of 20p in the pound and the March 1993 Budget widened that band by £500 in both 1993–94 and 1994–95, increasing it to £2,500 and £3,000 respectively. That will take the number of taxpayers paying income tax at only 20p in the pound to almost 5 million or nearly one-fifth of all taxpayers. The benefits of that tax have been very much concentrated on the lower paid.
As regards the cuts—and to refer to them as cuts is wrong when all that one is doing is allowing people to keep more of their own income—and what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, referred to as the reckless tax cuts, as my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston made perfectly clear, those reforms resulted in the top 1 per cent. of income taxpayers currently contributing some 17 per cent. to total revenue from income tax compared with some 11 per cent. in 1979. Further, real incomes have risen significantly. Even now, at the end of a long recession, the real net income, after direct taxation and child benefit, of an average married man with two children is over 40 per cent. higher than in 1979, which is the equivalent of some £83 per week in today's terms. Under the last Labour Government, real take-home pay rose by 0.6 per cent. in five years.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the real take-home income of the bottom 10 per cent. of families in this country is now lower than it was in 1979? Indeed, he must agree because it is on his own Government's figures that that proposition can be made. How does he square that with the fact that someone on an average income—and an average income is up to at least the 70th percentile within the distribution of income—has received the gains which he described?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord either misunderstands or misinterprets the household below average income statistics. As the noble Lord will know, most of those on income-related benefits are not in the lowest decile of the HBAI figures but in the decile above that. As the noble Lord will know, all those on income-related benefits have seen their incomes

971
increase, and increase by marginally more than inflation. Those who are in the bottom decile tend to be people like the self-employed—a number that has grown quite dramatically—whose expenditure is very much greater than their income; for example, someone who is self-employed and setting up a new business who, for the first year or two, will have a negative or zero income. To argue that the people in that bottom 10 per cent. are necessarily the poorest in the country, when they have an expenditure greater than the second bottom 10 per cent., and when they are a vastly fluctuating body, is very misleading. If the noble Lord wishes to define "the poor" as those on income-related benefits, he will find that their incomes have increased and have increased by more than inflation.
Further, the standard of living for all groups—this is particularly true of the lower deciles—has improved dramatically over the past 14 years. I could elaborate in great detail about the increased numbers of household goods and consumer goods from which such people now benefit. Moreover, as I have made quite clear, the benefit system protects those on low incomes much more effectively, and we have seen their incomes increase by more than inflation.
Perhaps I may say a few words about two of the taxes that have been introduced; namely, the air passenger duty and the increases in VAT, to which one or two noble Lords referred. I think it was my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who both objected to the air passenger duty. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to it as a third world tax, which I found rather odd since it is a tax that in fact the United States, Belgium and Denmark all levy, and to dismiss our colleagues in the United States, Belgium and Denmark as third world countries is somewhat unfair. It is a tax that many other countries have and we do not believe that it creates unfairness between one form of transport or another. Certainly I do not agree—as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, implied—that it favours the owners of executive jets since the executive jets are already taxed when they are bought and many flights are subject to VAT, which domestic flights are not. I think he will find that there is no unfairness there. But I note the points that various noble Lords made about those and other taxes.
We remain the party which is committed to low taxation. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made perfectly clear in February, we remain by instinct a tax-cutting party —the only tax-cutting party —and when it is possible to cut taxes again we will.
Turning now to spending, because obviously that is the other side of the account, my right honourable friend took some £10 billion off spending plans for the next three years and launched the next round of the fundamental expenditure reviews to examine closely every area of government spending. As a result, government borrowing should be eliminated altogether by the end of the decade. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on waste. We all object to waste in government. I think the noble Lord raised two particular points. One referred to consultants, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister dealt with at Question Time only the other day but I will
972
write to the noble Lord in greater detail. He also raised the question of defence expenditure. Again, I would prefer to write to the noble Lord but I do agree with him that there is an absolute need to reduce unnecessary government expenditure and that is why my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary has initiated that series of fundamental reviews of departmental spending.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I merely mentioned the defence expenditure; I did not go into any detail. I said I was going to spare him that. What the noble Lord has not dealt with is the wasteful expenditure incurred, with the Government's approval, over the whole of the European Community. Will he please answer that?
Lord Peston: Preferably not today !
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think I will take some note of the advice from the noble Lord, Lord Peston. What I should do is refer the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to the Edinburgh Summit and the agreements reached at that summit that impose certain ceilings on expenditure. Those ceilings might not be as great as the noble Lord would like, but they certainly are ceilings, and ceilings beyond which we cannot go. I very much doubt whether, if the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, had been in power, he would have got quite such tight ceilings negotiated at the Edinburgh Summit. I can say to the noble Lord that we will continue to keep all government expenditure under review. We will continue to take a fundamental look at every single department and those reviews, as they come on board, will obviously assist my right honourable and honourable friends in the Treasury when they make their decisions in time for next year's unified Budget.
I think I also ought to say just a word or two about capital expenditure, because that subject was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who implied that we had underspent on capital matters over the past few years and were going to underspend in the future. I think the noble Lord welcomed the fact that the Red Book now distinguished between both capital and current account expenditure. However, I can tell the noble Lord—as I think my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston made quite clear—that total public sector capital spending will be around £22 billion a year over the next three years. It is now 20 per cent. higher in real terms than the average in the 1980s—that is, discounting those institutions which have now been privatised. Public sector capital spending takes no account of the investment of those programmes of former nationalised industries, which are all now thriving in the private sector. The nationalised transport industries are investing some 40 per cent. more in real terms than the average over the past 10 years. As a. result, the completion of the Jubilee Line extension and the: Channel Tunnel rail link will proceed as planned. The national roads programme has risen by some 60 per

973
cent. in recent years, and support for the Housing Corporation has increased by nearly 90 per cent. in real terms over the past five years.
Before I leave the subject of government spending and government borrowing, I want to address one final remark to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I totally reject his allegation that Ministers massaged figures before the last election as regards the PSBR. The £32 billion estimate at the time of the 1992 Budget represented the Government's best views of the likely PSBR in the coming year.
The economic recovery is now firmly established. Output has risen for eight consecutive quarters and has now returned to its pre-recession peak. The clear message from business surveys and forecasters is that they expect recovery to continue. Only this week the CBI published its latest quarterly survey showing business confidence continuing to rise. Last week a survey by the British chambers of commerce showed rising output, investment and confidence across both manufacturing and services, with most indicators of economic activity at their highest level for four years.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was quite right to refer to the need for greater competitiveness, although why signing up to the Social Chapter should ever increase our competitiveness I have never quite understood. I ought to point out to the noble Lord just how well we are doing in terms of attracting both Japanese and United States inward investments. Some 40 per cent. of all Japanese inward investment in the European Community comes to this country, and the figure is roughly the same for United States inward investment. I recommend that the noble Lord should go and look, say, at the Nissan factory in Sunderland or the Toyota factory near Derby, as I have done.
Those companies are not putting their factories there because there is a low wage, low skill workforce. They go there because there is a highly skilled workforce. It is a highly cost-effective workforce, but with low labour costs. The noble Lord must distinguish between low wages and low labour costs. The fact that we can offer low labour costs, in addition to the fact that we have such a skilled workforce, is one of the principal reasons why inward investment is still coming here and why manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government by some 0.5 per cent. per annum and rose by 0.5 per cent. from 1979 to 1984.
I shall also say a word or two about the adverse visible trade balance, or current account balance, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others. It might have helped if the noble Lord had given the figures as a percentage of GDP—I do not have them here—rather than in money terms. That might have kept the picture in greater perspective. I believe that our prudent fiscal and monetary policy should enable the current account deficit to be financed reasonably comfortably. Again, I have mentioned our outstanding record in attracting foreign direct investment, which shows that overseas investors certainly have confidence in the United Kingdom.
In the end it is that competitiveness and our export performance which will be most important. I point out
974
that our export performance has been strong, particularly to countries outside the EC, and is up by some 8.5 per cent. on a year ago. Again, my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston was right to stress the importance of City of London invisibles in assisting here. Our share of world trade in manufactures has ceased to decline, as it did throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and by the 1980s had stabilised.
I turn now to unemployment. One of the best pieces of news that we have is that unemployment has fallen by some quarter of a million since the end of 1992. It started falling far sooner than almost any of the pundits expected and at a much earlier phase of recovery than was previously experienced, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out. After the recession of the early 1980s, unemployment continued to rise for some five years after the turning point in output, but this time unemployment began to fall less than a year after output started to rise. I believe that improved labour market performance is evidence of greater flexibility in the labour market—the results of the Government's supply side reforms of the 1980s.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked what lessons we had learnt. I believe that one of the most important lessons that we have learnt is that those labour market reforms that we made, which were opposed at every step by the party opposite, have led to that much earlier decline in unemployment. We have also learnt that economic growth is generated by business and employees and not by government. Governments have a responsibility for ensuring that markets work properly and that the regulatory tax burden is kept to a minimum.
I do not believe that we can afford to jeopardise recovery by letting government borrowing spiral out of control. Every family and every business in Britain has had to take steps to bring spending and income into line during the difficult years of recession. It would not be right for the Government alone to plan to live year after year beyond their means. To bring borrowing under control has required some politically unpopular decisions. But our willingness to do unpopular things has been proof of our determination to sort out the public finances once and for all.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 27th April), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994
2.57 p.m.
Lord Annaly Lord Annaly rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft Order in Council —the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994—which is now before your Lordships' House makes provision for the entry and residence of European Economic Area nationals in the United Kingdom. The order is necessary in order to incorporate

975
formally into United Kingdom immigration law those European Community directives which deal with freedom of movement and rights of residence for European Economic Area nationals. We already apply those directives. The earlier directives have been implemented through the United Kingdom immigration rules and the most recent ones administratively.
The order is thus largely a technical measure. It confirms our current immigration practice in relation to European Economic Area nationals and their family members. It enables us to meet our obligation to incorporate all these European Community directives into United Kingdom law.
It may be of help if I explain at this point the reason why the order refers throughout to European Economic Area (shortened to EEA) nationals rather than to European Community nationals or even to citizens of the European Union. The reason is that on 1st January 1994 the European Economic Area Agreement came into force. That agreement extends most of the provisions of the European single market, including the provisions relating to free movement and residence, to five countries of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)—Austria. Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden—in addition to the 12 European Community member states. Of the remaining two EFTA states, Liechtenstein has signed the EEA Agreement but the EEA does not yet extend to Liechtenstein. Switzerland has decided not to join the EEA.
The European Community directives on free movement and residence therefore now apply to nationals of all EEA states right across the European Economic Area.
While we are concerned in the order only with EEA nationals coming to the United Kingdom, the rights of residents are reciprocal. They apply also to British citizens who wish to reside in any other EEA country. Thus we now all have the right, if we wish to do so, not only to work hut, provided we are financially self-supporting, to study and even to retire in any EEA country.
The order deals with the different circumstances in which EEA nationals may wish to reside here. The main categories are workers, the self-employed, those in business and providers or recipients of services, students, retired persons, and other financially self-sufficient persons.
I shall try to explain the effects of the order by outlining how its provisions apply to an EEA national coming here. On arrival at the United Kingdom port or airport, the EEA national needs to show a valid EEA passport or identity card. At most major ports and airports we already have a separate EEA channel for arriving passengers where EEA nationals need simply show their passport to an immigration officer. No stamp or endorsement is placed in the EEA national's passport. He or she is then free to enter the United Kingdom in much the same way as a returning British citizen.
Having entered this country, an EEA national is free to work in an employed or self-employed capacity, to carry out business, to stay here as a student, to retire here or to reside in any other capacity. Students, retired persons and others wishing to reside without working
976
need to be financially self-supporting and to have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on our social security system.
The order sets out the procedures for granting residence permits to EEA nationals. This is a facility which we are required to provide under EC law. However, we do not insist on EEA nationals obtaining a residence permit.
The spouse and other family members are able to accompany or join an EEA national here. However, if family members are not themselves EEA nationals arid are either visa nationals or coming to install themselves here on a permanent or long-term basis they need to obtain a visa or an EEA family permit before travelling to the United Kingdom. An EEA family permit is an entry clearance issued at a British post overseas. It confirms the eligibility for entry of the family member to join an EEA national. Your Lordships will notice that at Article 2 of the order, we have excluded parties to a marriage of convenience who we consider have no, right to be treated as family members under EC law.
In conformity with EC law the Government also retain the right to remove an EEA national or family member of an EEA national on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. For example, the immigration department reviews the cases of EEA nationals who have committed serious criminal offences with a view to their deportation.
I should say for the record what is not covered by the order. It does not cover EC Regulations Nos. 1612/68 and 1251/70 which have a bearing on rights of residence but already have direct effect in United Kingdom law. Nor does the order deal with our current practice in relation to the permanent residence of EEA nationals. This will continue to apply under the United Kingdom immigration rules. Finally, I should acid that in parallel with this order we will be bringing into force Section 7(1) of the Immigration Act 1988 which removes the requirement on EEA nationals to obtain leave to enter the United Kingdom.
This draft order is of necessity rather complex as fit has to cover the provisions of nine separate EC directives. Nevertheless I hope I have reassured your Lordships that the order is largely technical in nature, confirming our current practice in relation to EEA nationals. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Annaly.)
3.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that this is the first business, other than a Starred Question, which the noble Lord has presented at the Dispatch Box. I welcome him to the fray. If he thinks that he will get away with describing it as "a largely technical measure", he has another think coming.
This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory order. It is self-contradictory. It is badly worded; it is in conflict in

977
many respects with European Community directives and regulations; and it does not deserve the approval of the House.
I have already given the noble Lord the headings under which I propose to criticise the order, so I hope that he will be able to respond to the specific questions that I shall ask him when he responds to the debate.
My first question is about the definition of a "family member" in Clause 2. It is defined there as being the spouse, or,
"a descendant … who is under 21 years of age or is their dependant".
The noble Lord has just told us that Regulation 16.12 of 1988 is not covered by this order because it is already part of United Kingdom law. But I remind him that Title III, Article 10 of that regulation extends the definition of family members to include brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces who are dependent. Will the noble Lord tell the House in what way United Kingdom law covers those who are defined by the European Community as being family members but are not covered as being family members in this order? Unless he can give us that information, I am afraid that the charge of conflict between European legislation and the order that is before us must stand.
My second question is about the issue of an European Economic Area family permit. I am interested to hear from the noble Lord the explanation. It is not in the order, nor indeed in the Explanatory Note, that an EEA family permit will be issued at a post overseas. How does the Minister explain the difference between this reference to an EEA family permit in paragraph 3(3) with the reference in paragraph 5(2) (c) to,
"proof that he is a family member of a qualified person"?
There does not seem to be any particular reason for that. There is no reference to family permits in European legislation, and the difference between the two references needs a firmer explanation.
The whole question of relationships between the national and other family members again needs further explanation. Directive 68/3/60/EEC says that,
"a relationship is proved by a document issued by a competent authority".
How does that square with the provision in paragraph 2(2) that a spouse
"does not include a party to a marriage of convenience".
There is no reference in European legislation to a marriage of convenience. The whole concept of the primary purpose rule which is unique to this country does not appear in European legislation, and does not appear to be justified in an order of this kind which purports to implement European legislation. I shall not continue on this point because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wants to say something on it. But I cannot forbear from referring to the immigration Act which we passed last year—unwisely, in my view. There is reference in this order to the rights of appeal. But of course the right of appeal under the 1993 Act does not exist if, in Section 10 of the 1993 Act, the ground of refusal is that the document required under the immigration rules is lacking. So the references which appear to apply here to the right of appeal to a refusal do not in fact apply to those who come without
978
an EEA family permit. I wonder whether the Minister can explain that contradiction between the wording of the order and the provisions of the 1993 Act.
The third issue is that of internal frontiers. We spent a long time last year on the Maastricht Treaty, and we are very well aware that the Government have publicly insisted on the continuation of the right of control at internal frontiers. But Article 7A of the European Communities treaty, as amended by Maastricht, does not give us the right to maintain controls at internal frontiers for citizens of member states. The issue is still in doubt because there has been an application for judicial review ex parte Flynn. Can the Minister tell us what will happen if the judicial review goes against the Government? Will there have to be an amendment to this order? How will the matter be dealt with? The Government certainly cannot claim that they have obtained the agreement of the legal authorities or the European Courts at any rate to the claim to maintain internal frontiers.
I turn to the right of family members to remain. Paragraph 4(2) states that:
"A family member of a qualified person shall be entitled to reside … for as long as he remains the family member of a qualified person".
Under the definition of "family member" that we have already discussed, a family member is only a descendant who is under 21 and/or dependent on the qualified person. What happens if that family member reaches the age of 21 or ceases to be dependent? Does he no longer have the right to reside in this country? How does that square with European legislation? Or, does it mean—because the wording of the order is ambiguous—that there could be a change in the status of the qualified person rather than the status of the family member? Which one does it mean? Unless the Minister can give an answer to that question, the order will remain unclear.
I turn to the definition of "qualified person", which is very complicated and takes up the whole of paragraph 6 of the order. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments raised a query on a specific definition, namely, the definition of "student", and his having:
"sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system",
of the United Kingdom. In response to a letter from the clerk to the joint committee, the Home Office replied —I use the words of the joint committee—
"attempting to justify the choice of words",
used in this order. But the committee said that it believed that it was doubtful whether the order did, in that respect, implement the directive. Therefore:
"there is doubt whether [the order] is infra vires".
How can that be resolved? This is an order which has not been recommended as being without problems by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In his opening statement the Minister made no reference to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I suggest that he should have done so and that we need a better answer than that which failed to convince the joint committee when it was given by the Home Office.
Apart from anything else, I have a genuine problem with the definition of "a student". In the order "a student" is defined as:

979
"a person who … is enrolled at a recognised educational establishment in the United Kingdom for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course".
A vocational training course, my Lords! Are students taking only vocational training courses? Surely students are students, whether they are studying Latin, mathematics or engineering. Is it seriously claimed that citizens of member states of the European Union cannot come here as students—they have to be qualified persons in order to pursue economic activity in this country—unless they are pursuing a vocational training course? Again, I suggest that the wording of the order is seriously defective and is in conflict with European directives and regulations.
As I am on the point of the wording of paragraph 6, perhaps I may ask the Minister to tell us the difference between "social assistance" and "social security". In paragraph 6(1) (f) "a self-sufficient person":
"has sufficient resources to avoid his becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom".
In the very next sub-paragraph, paragraph 6(1) (g), "a retired person",
"means a person who … is in receipt of [moneys] … sufficient to avoid his becoming a burden on the social security system of the United Kingdom".
What is the difference between a social assistance system and a social security system? Why are the words used as though they were interchangeable?
There is then the issue of the third country nationals with residence rights in this country. There are binding agreements between a number of member states of the European Community—I do not know about other members of the European Economic Association—which give rights of residence, for example, to Turkish citizens in Germany. Are they covered by the order? There is no reference to those agreements which are part of the European immigration legislation and should be dealt with in the order.
The order is thoroughly unsatisfactory. If it were not for the firm convention in this House that we do not overturn orders, and in view of the fact that we cannot amend them, I would be recommending to your Lordships that the order be sent back to be thoroughly revised. I shall certainly recommend to my right honourable and honourable friends in another place that when the order comes before them it should be rejected out of hand.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I agree with almost every word the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, uttered in a devastating destruction of the order. I join him in welcoming the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box and only commiserate with him on his maiden appearance in having to introduce an order which is so difficult to accept on any ground whatever. I suspect that none of his colleagues wanted to introduce it and that is why he is landed with it. It reminds me of the passage in Peter Pan when Captain Hook says, "They always make the baby Hook". That is what happened on this occasion.
'The noble Lord says it is a technical measure. It is highly technical but that does not mean it does not raise matters of important principle. It does. As the noble
980
Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it is thoroughly bad, devious —as I will show—and of course late. The Government constantly congratulate themselves on British compliance with European Union legislation and directives. In this case we cannot congratulate ourselves on progress. The order is late. I believe that it is no less than six years late, and that is taking leisure rather seriously.
I will attempt to show that again and again throughout the order we attempt to qualify European Union law by means of domestic law, and that we cannot do. Those attempts will fail in respect of the three issues I propose to raise—the right of residence, marriages of conveniences and the question of passports or identity cards when arriving in this country. I shall begin with the rights of residence. As the noble Lord said in his introduction, the order brings into force Section 7(1) of the Immigration Act 1988. On 1st November 1993 all nationals of the European Union become citizens of the Union. On that date we shall all have dual citizenship and as citizens of the European Union we are endowed with certain rights, one of which is the right of residence in any part of the European Union. That is embodied in Article 8A EC.
By virtue of that article citizens of the Union are entitled to reside wherever they wish within the Union, without hindrance, and subject to exclusion only on the three grounds mentioned by the noble Lord of public policy, public security and public health. However, paragraph 6 of the order states that citizens of the Union only enjoy residence rights in the United Kingdom when they can establish entitlement under some other provision of European Union law. That is a matter of some importance because what is at issue is the burden of proof. Is there a presumption in favour of European Union citizens, or must they, when they come to this country, provide some other proof in order to be entitled to residence? This is not a trifling matter. It is a matter of real significance and importance. I should like to have the Government's answer to that question.
Secondly, I should like to look at marriages of convenience. Paragraph 2(2) of the order reads:
"'spouse' does not include a party to a marriage of convenience".
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, there is no definition of "a marriage of convenience" and I am advised that there is no legal basis for that exclusion. It is what I described earlier as an attempt to place a restriction on European Union law which is not countenanced by European Union law. There is no domestic power to restrict rights under European law.
Thirdly, I should like to look at investigation. In. addition, that provision in the order might appear to give the state the right to investigate marriages between citizens of the Union and third country nationals. As we know, inquiries into the primary purpose of a marriage can take months and indeed years. They are extremely intrusive and during the investigation in most cases the spouse is excluded from entry into this country. Is that proposed in the case of European Union citizens?
It has been said of this provision:
"European Union law will not interfere with our national decisions on how we wish to treat ourselves. However, it will prevent us from subjecting citizens of the Union to the humiliation which we may consider appropriate for ourselves".

981
The Minister must tell us what is the consequence of introducing this concept of marriage of convenience, which has no definition and no place in European Union law. How will that affect the issues which I have just mentioned.
Paragraph 3(1) of the order requires an EEA national to provide a passport or identity card on entry into this country. As your Lordships will be aware, this has been the subject of legal debate as to the compatibility of passport checks on entry into this country with Article 7A EC of the treaty. The matter will probably have to be settled in the European Court of Justice. The United Kingdom Government believe that they have such a power. The Commission has set out its position, arguing that no such power exists. It seems very odd for the Government to legislate in favour of their own view when there is a strong likelihood that a decision will be made by the European Court of Justice that will make the Government look foolish and they will then have to go back on the law which they have just passed, bearing in mind also that decisions of the European Court of Justice cannot be rendered ineffective by domestic law.
The haste which the Government have shown in this matter is in marked contrast to the dilatory way in which they have approached those other European Union regulations, laws and directives which give rights to European Union citizens. Where there is restriction on the rights of European citizens, the Government act immediately; where they are provided with rights which are for their benefit, the Government take six years before they take action as regards this very flawed measure.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords opposite for the welcome which they have given me at the Dispatch Box. In the circumstances, and given the powerful speeches which both noble Lords have made, it is my intention, following my response, to adjourn further debate on the order rather than to invite your Lordships to agree to the Motion today.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the comments which you have made about the order and the way in which it transposes into United Kingdom law EC rights of free movement and residence. I shall now attempt to answer as many as possible of the questions raised on the order, but if there are any points which I have missed I shall endeavour to write to the noble Lord concerned.
As I explained at the outset, this is a necessary order so that the United Kingdom can demonstrate the formal implementation of the EC directives relating to the rights of residence of EEA nationals. It is not intended that the order should in practice make any significant change in our procedures. These are designed to make it as easy as possible for EEA nationals to exercise their rights to reside here with their families. At the same time, the Government's policy is to maintain firm but fair immigration control. We need therefore to maintain immigration checks at our frontiers on travellers arriving from both inside and outside the European Economic Area. We are also bound to ensure that the procedures relating to non-EEA dependants of EEA
982
nationals do not allow spurious applications to succeed or persons who are not genuine family members to circumvent immigration controls.
I now turn to the points which had been raised. I begin with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. First, the definition of "family member": Regulation 1612/68, which I referred to in my opening speech, already has direct effect so the references in that regulation to favouring the admission of other dependent relatives does not need to be implemented in this order.
I now turn to the point made by the noble Lord about EEA family permits. Non-EEA family members of EEA nationals who are visa nationals already require a visa to come to the United Kingdom. Under that order, if accompanying or joining the EEA national here, a visa national will require an EEA family permit. Non-EEA family members of EEA nationals who are not visa nationals already need an entry clearance if coming here for settlement under the immigration rules. Under the order they will require an EEA family permit if coming to install themselves with the EEA national—in other words, on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.
If coming for a temporary purpose such as a short visit, a non-EEA family member who is not a visa national does not require an EEA family permit. If once here such a person decides that they wish to stay longer, they may apply for a residence document in line with the residence permit issued to the EEA national.
The EEA family permit reflects the provision of Article 3(2) of EC Directive 68/360 EEC which states:
"No entry visa or equivalent document may be demanded save from members of the family who are not nationals of the member states".
The EEA family permit requirement puts non-EEA family members coming here in a similar position to the non-EEA family members of a British citizen who requires an entry clearance under the rules to settle here.
Turning to the questions raised about rights of appeal, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly recalls that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 excludes an appeal in certain cases where there is no document which is required by the immigration rules. However, the requirement of an EEA family permit is imposed by this order so it is not affected by the 1993 Act, and the right of appeal is available.
Turning to the points concerning frontier controls in Article 7A, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will know that the Government do not accept that Article 7A of the EC treaty prevents immigration controls continuing at United Kingdom ports and airports on non-EEA nationals supported by a light passport/identity card check on those EEA nationals. The United Kingdom's island geography makes it the most sensible and least intrusive system for our immigration controls to be primarily frontier-based, and the Government are determined that those controls will continue. Immigration controls at our frontiers do not interfere with the rights of free movement and residence of EEA nationals as set out in the order.
Article 3 of the order confirms that EEA nationals should produce on arriving here a valid passport or

983
identity card. That is in line with Article 3 of EC Directive 68/360/EEC which states that member states shall allow EEA nationals to enter their territory,
"simply on production of a valid identity card or passport".
That provision has been repeated in the more recent directives, including Directive 93/96/EEC on the right of residence to students which came into force on 31st December 1993, some 12 months after the completion of the single market. The case in the name of Flynn, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not bear on Directive 68/360/EEC.
Turning to the question that was raised about social assistance, the terms "social assistance" and "social security", which have been used separately in the order, simply reflect the separate wording used in the relevant EC directives.
On the points raised about the definition of "student", the order refers to students on vocational courses because this is the requirement of the relevant EC directive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, the order says —and I said—"vocational", not "vacational".
Lord Annaly: My Lords, my apologies.
The noble Lord criticised us for failing adequately to implement EC law, a charge which we reject. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, cannot, with respect, have it both ways. We cannot implement an obligation in relation to students which does not exist. That is why the order refers only to vocational students.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I intervene only to be helpful. I am very much involved in vocational education and training and attended a significant conference on this matter in Brussels in November last. The whole question of the use of the word 'vocational" was debated at some length by the relevant directorate-general. The problem appears to arise in translation from the French. I suggest that perhaps the Home Office might look into other occasions on which such a problem has arisen before finally reaching a conclusion on the wording to be used in such an order.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for bringing that point to our attention. We shall look into it and follow up what he has said.
I turn now to the point about association agreements. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to those association agreements which the European Community concluded with states outside the EEA, especially Turkey. As the noble Lord may know, such agreements do not confer rights of free movement on individuals. Therefore, the provisions fall outside the scope of the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke about the delays in implementing the directives. Although there has been a delay in implementing the three most recent directives, the earlier ones are all catered for in the immigration rules. The provisions of all the directives have been implemented administratively since they came into force, and no EEA national has been treated against the spirit of the directives.
984
The order is a complex piece of legislation and has been some time in its preparation. The Implementation was also delayed to take into account the entry into force of the European Economic Area Agreement on 1st January 1994.
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on the Motion for the approval of the order be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion for the approval of the order be now adjourned.—(Lord Annaly.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may express my appreciation for the responsible way in which he has responded to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and myself. I am most grateful to him. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to consider the matter in more detail at a later stage.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with those remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate on the Motion for the approval of the order adjourned accordingly sine die.

Apple Growers
3.36 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether apple growers in the United Kingdom are making substantial losses; if so, how extensive those losses are; and what proposals they have to prevent a surplus of apples in the European Union.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper seeks to draw attention to a very serious situation in the UK dessert apple industry and to ask the Government what proposals they have to deal with the problem.
The first point to consider is whether the current problem which we shall be discussing in the debate is merely a feature of the normal seasonal surplus and deficit that we all face in agriculture and horticulture —for example, one good year, followed by several bad years and, to some extent, a. self-correcting mechanism —or whether what we are seeing is the result of a deep-seated structural problem in apple production in this country, the European Union and the non-member countries who supply the European market. I strongly believe that it is the latter; namely, a structural problem. I shall attempt to show the House why and to suggest means of dealing with the problem. I shall also seek the Government's views on what proposals they have to deal with such a serious situation.
Perhaps I may put the matter into context. The UK produces annually about 210,000 tonnes of dessert apples, and about 140,000 tonnes of cooking apples, with seasonal variations in the yield. That represents about 30 per cent. of the total UK apple consumption. So, obviously, we are a major importer of dessert apples. Ours is about 4 per cent. of the total European Union production of some 8 million to 9 million tonnes per annum. In recent years, the UK has been responsible for rather less than 2 per cent. of EU intervention. The

985
current forward projections of the EU apple production suggest a total production in the order of 10 million tonnes per annum by 1996 with a range of 8.5 million to 11 million tonnes. The same forecast suggests a world surplus of 3 million to 4 million tonnes per annum. If that is not a structural surplus, I do not know what is.
Some figures produced by industry sources (including home-grown fruits) indicate the range of packhouse prices to the grower now of about 3 pence to 5 pence a pound, with slightly higher figures for cox apples, against growing costs of 8 pence to 12 pence a pound. That situation has proved to be the norm over the past two years and is likely to continue into the next season unless action is taken.
Substantial efficient growers have experienced losses in the past two years which have wiped out previous profits. They are now facing a third successive year of heavy loss, unless something is done and done quickly. The industry employs in total about 100,000 people. That includes those in the orchards both upstream and downstream, those in the packing houses and also part-time employees. A serious problem which will have to be dealt with as regards apple orchards is top fruit. As we know, top fruit is not part of the arable aid system. There are no alternative arable crops which can be grown on the land as a part of the arable aid system and it is not eligible for set-aside. That means that if growers are forced to take the land out of apple production, it is extremely hard for them to know what they can do with it. That has resulted in a situation where land with apple orchards is now virtually unsaleable.
What has happened with the EU apple regime to create such a situation? First, I believe, it is the failure of intervention. Intervention was intended to deal with the occasional seasonal surplus so as to take such surplus off the market. Instead, it has become a permanent feature of the regime. Indeed, some growers in other member states deliberately grow for intervention. The system is rife for fraud. Secondly, there is also the comparative failure of the previous schemes for grubbing up. A substantial proportion of the funds available on the most recent scheme went to East Germany (which was not considered as a recipient when the scheme was set up) and has obviously distorted the whole picture. Thirdly, there is the predatory pricing by some member states of the EU, especially Holland; and, finally, the problem of low-priced imports from the southern hemisphere.
What proposals does the European Commission have to deal with the problem? Does the Commission recognise the urgency of the situation? Apparently not. The Secretary-General of the COPA/COGECA wrote to the Director-General of DG VI of the Commission on 6th December 1993 describing the seriousness of the situation. That followed a deputation in July 1993 which also described the very urgent problem. There was no reply to the letter sent in December for two-and-a-half months. Mr. Christopher Jackson, a Member of the European Parliament, then wrote and, finally, on 7th April—that is, nine months after the problem was first described by the deputation to the Commission—Mr.
986
Steichen, the Commissioner, replied, very unhelpfully. He said that he regretted the failure of the previous grubbing-up schemes and that he looked forward, "with some apprehension", to the results of the increased planting—he was certainly entitled to do so—and then referred vaguely to,
"measures for the reform of the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables which is now under active consideration".
The letter completely failed to distinguish between the problems which face the British grower and those which face growers in other member states. That was either deliberate or it was the result of some very careless drafting. But we all know what it means for the horticultural sector to wait for the review; it is a further delay while apple growers get into deeper trouble. There are times when I believe that the speed of response of the European Commission makes the average tortoise look like a gazelle.
The proposals made by COPA/COGECA in advance of the horticultural review being undertaken by the Commission have two main features. The first relates to grubbing up grants for an area of the European Union. The original area suggested was 33,000 hectares. That has since been increased to 50,000 hectares because the situation has worsened. There have been substantial changes in the intervention system to penalise the varieties which are consistently intervened. I was not surprised to learn that Golden Delicious is consistently intervened. If ever a variety were misnamed, that one was!
As regards the proposals for grubbing-up grants, the important point is that the one-off capital costs could be met within three years by savings in intervention. That is an important point with regard to the effects on the European budget.
As part of the COPA/COGECA proposals, there has been an imaginative set of proposals from the National Farmers' Union, supported by the apple industry. It has proposed a policy package comprising changes to the intervention system with a reduction in the intervention price and its eventual phasing out; effective use of the reference price system to prevent the dumping of apples by third countries; improvements in the marketing and promotion of British fruit (a good deal has been done by the industry itself in that respect); means of pressing the UK Government to ensure that other member states of the European Union do not unfairly aid their growers and that there is the level playing field with which we are all familiar; and other proposals regarding production, marketing and plant health. Clearly, there is no shortage of policy proposals.
A further problem arises from the GATT settlement. Already the European Commission has formulated a draft agreement with Chile which goes beyond the GATT settlement. Will the Minister say whether that agreement is a proposal from the Commission or an agreement by the Council of Ministers? Under GATT rules it opens a door for other countries to seek identical agreements. New Zealand has made clear that it will seek identical terms. Such agreements could substantially increase the volume of low-priced imports from non-member states which in recent years have increased

987
their productive capacity without any consideration of the market available. It is extremely unfair on the European Union grower if the increase in capacity in the non-member states is dealt with by agreements such as that with Chile, which gets it out of a problem it has created itself. I ask the Minister what stance the Government are taking as regards the proposed agreement with Chile and other similar agreements which may be reached in the future. Have the Government expressed a view? If so, it would be extremely helpful to the House to know what it is.
The proposals for grubbing-up grants and changes to the intervention system that I have described are now on the table. They are urgently required to deal with the problem for the coming season. What view do the Government take? Do they support the proposals? Do they agree with the description that I have given as regards the seriousness of the situation? In the light of that, what concrete proposals do the Government have for action before the 1994–95 season and beyond?
What alternative use of the land, now used for apples, do the Government envisage, if we bear in mind the problems to which I have already referred, because that land is not a part of the arable aid system? I sympathise with those who are having to grapple with the problem because they are entitled to ask what will happen to the land if the orchards are grubbed-up. It seems to me that there will have to be an attempt to bring such land into the system of support or set-aside or that alternative use will have to be allowed, for example, as woodland or as a source of crops for industrial fuel or whatever. All those matters need to be considered but they will have to be thought through extremely carefully. What will happen to the land if grubbing up, which I believe is essential, is undertaken?
Although in recent years the industry has had a good record of self-help, it is essential that the Government should now step in. This morning I received a press release from the Ministry regarding the Agricultural Council held earlier this week. We hoped that help for the apple industry would be discussed by Ministers at the meeting but that apparently was not the case or, at least, it is not mentioned in the press release. Will the Minister say whether or not the problem was discussed at the Council, and if so, what conclusions were reached?
I know that other speakers in the debate will cover a number of aspects of this matter. I understand that following the Napoleonic wars, excessive imports from France caused a desperate situation for English apples, which moved Lord Torrington to observe:
"The sooner Kent is without an apple tree, the better".
We must all hope that Lord Torrington's fears for Kent in the 19th century do not become the actual experience of apple growers throughout the United Kingdom as a result of inaction by the European Commission, abetted by our own Government.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for tabling this Unstarred Question. Perhaps I may add some background to the questions which he asked so pertinently.
988
For 46 years I have been involved in the top fruit. industry. I was a grower, a co-operative founder and director, chairman of a co-ordinating organisation and, perhaps more importantly in the context of the Question, for 12 years until 1986 I was the horticultural co-operative's representative in Brussels. I am therefore: very well aware of the dilatoriness and prevarications of the Commission, and the frustrations of trying to get it to do anything—that is, anything you want. I most sincerely hope that we are not going to suffer the same frustrations from our own Ministry.
In all my 46 years I have not known a crisis among fruit growers of anything like the present situation; nor have I known such unity of purpose. For once that unity of purpose is the same across the whole of the EC. There is now an unrivalled opportunity to achieve some progress in sorting out the European apple surplus.
Let us be clear about the magnitude of the problem. The European surplus this year was in excess of 1 million tonnes. But that is only Europe. The worldwide surplus was probably over 2 million, and growing. Much of this world wide production is targeted at us here. There is nowhere else for it to go. While there is a surplus on the Continent, it should be remembered that there is no surplus in the United Kingdom. We supply only 30 per cent. of our market, but the United Kingdom Treasury is paying its percentage of the millions paid to continental producers for intervention.
As long ago as 13th October I led a deputation of the fruit industry to meet the Minister of State. We put forward a united plan to help ameliorate the overall problems both of our own and the Community. This plan was later agreed in principle by the Minister in writing, and has since been confirmed. Most, but not all, of this plan is acceptable to our European fruit growing colleagues. There is need—urgent need—for some of the things to be implemented as soon as possible. The Commission is conducting an overall review of horticulture. So, we are told, we must wait for this. Waiting for the Commission's reviews is a fine way of doing nothing. They take years and are always late.
Part of the package put to the Minister of State was for a grubbing grant; a grubbing grant with a replanting prohibition for 15 years. Our European colleagues are lobbying for this to the tune of removing 50,000 hectares of apples from the market. If this were done, our contribution to the cost of intervention would drop considerably because the Treasury is paying for French and Italian intervention, not British. We hardly use it and would like it to go. The cost to the Treasury of their share of the grant would equate to approximately one-and-a-half years' saving in payments to intervention—money which is not benefiting this country. May I ask the Minister whether he knows if anyone in the Treasury understands investment and expenditure to bring forth future rewards? I do not really expect him to answer.
However, the Minister of State has accepted our whole plan. We have told our European colleagues this. They have informed their own governments. But, firstly, apparently our Government will only support the whole plan—and that awaits the never never land of the Commission's review—and, secondly, because of that,

989
they will not support the united call at the Council of Ministers for an urgent part of it. Our European colleagues do not understand how we are able to say that our Ministry is right behind us when they see no visible signs of it across the water.
I cannot over-emphasise the urgency of this matter. Fruit growers have had two disastrous years, not of their making. The banks have a red alert on the fruit growing enterprises, with a similar view taken by estate agents. This is not an industry crying in its soup for a great rescue hand out. It is an industry that has done more to help itself than any other in the country. It survived and reorganised in the 70s, losing 50 per cent. of its hectarage to become leaner and fitter to compete with Europe's new challenges.
The industry has organised its marketing and is continuing to change and develop. It has raised £1.5 million per annum to promote its product; half of the total promotion money raised by the whole of horticulture. Additionally, it has extracted £1.25 million from European schemes over the past three years, the only horticultural industry to do so. It receives practically no financial support from the Government or Europe. Compare that with the millions paid to livestock and cereal farmers. It is disadvantaged over IACS—a point which the Minister may care to address. Horticulture as a whole costs only 5 per cent. of the total cost of the CAP.
I therefore ask the Minister for an assurance that at the next Council of Ministers the United Kingdom will support the European request for the urgent introduction of a grubbing grant. There are growers anxious to retire from the industry altogether who are seeing their hard-earned gains disappear and the value of their holdings rapidly diminish. At present they can only retire by being put out of business by the banks—a prospect that comes nearer with every day of inactivity.
We hear a great deal from the Ministry about consumer choice. If some action is not taken soon one choice which consumers will not have is to buy English apples. Over the past two years producers have received back about half the cost of producing fruit in spite of the splendid co-operation that we have had from all the supermarkets.
We also hear that the last grubbing grants did not achieve their expected result. That may be a Treasury argument, but the Ministry of Agriculture knows full well that the first grubbing grant coincided with the unexpected collapse of the Berlin Wall, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, and mostly went to East Germany. The second coincided with a freak short year which was therefore relatively profitable for those few who happened to have a crop.
Our request is backed not only by growers and their organisations but also by the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Information Bureau and by wholesalers both here and in Europe. They have committed their support to paper.
Our European friends—and they are indeed friends —do not understand what is going on. For years our representatives have been calling for this type of action and been frustrated by French, Italian and other opposition. Now, when everyone is agreed and seeking
990
part of that which the British have always wanted, our Government have failed to give us public—and I emphasise "public"—support. No wonder they think that we are mad.
I also ask the Minister for an assurance that when —and I shall show confidence by not saying "if"—the Government and the Commission act to assist themselves—yes, themselves—and us, whether in grants, schemes or through GATT, the Ministry will use its best endeavours to make sure that the Commission enforces its own regulation. We are worried particularly by GATT. The Commission has a very bad record on either acting in time or for that matter acting at all. Our worst fears have already been fuelled by the recent compromise draft agreement with Chile.
There is no point in doing anything at all if the only result of our combined efforts is to make a hole in the European market for a further flood of imported fruit from third countries. Perhaps it was not very encouraging at a recent meeting with the Secretary of State to hear him say at the conclusion that inflation and cheap food were our top priorities. In the context of cheap food, I question the value of the help that we may think we are giving to eastern Europe by purchasing its produce when we are paying its producers substantially less than the cost of production.
It may be thought that the advent of the GATT agreement will alleviate the import problem, but I seriously doubt whether that will be so. The Commission, by its dithering and indecision in the face of mounting protests over the years at the quantity of imports, has in fact already sold the pass. That cannot be laid at the door of our own Ministry. But the truth is that the basic import quotas, above which GATT duties would be leviable, have been allowed to establish themselves at a very high level due to the Commission's past inactivity.
To demonstrate the overall change in supply the following figures may serve to emphasise both the dimensions of the problem and its seriousness. Over the past six years imports into the United Kingdom have doubled, rising from 95,000 tonnes to 190,000 tonnes. Imports here are increasing at a rate faster than the overall rate of increase into the Community as a whole. If my memory is right—and it is my memory upon which I call—when I first went to Brussels we were fighting the Commission over a figure of about 200,000 tonnes of imports a year and trying to reduce that figure to about 180,000 tonnes. Today we are fighting over 650,000 tonnes of imports.
To conclude, perhaps I may ask the Minister to review the IACS situation in order to make it easier for growers to use their land for other than fruit growing. Perhaps I may also ask that the discussions currently in hand to provide a unified information service throughout the industry be pushed on urgently so that that service is in place for the coming season. Purchasers, packers, growers and storers all need reliable crop and stock figures. At present there are conflicting sources of information collected by four different criteria and causing confusion as to the state of the market, both present and future.

991
But, most importantly, I must return to the urgent call for a grubbing grant to remove hectarage across the Community. In the UK we would aim to remove some 2,500 hectares of fruit—5 per cent. of the figure for which our European colleagues are calling. My information is that we use 2 per cent. of the Community's intervention and the Treasury pays for 12 per cent. of the total European costs. Therefore, 85 per cent. of our money goes to pay for Continental apples to be thrown away. Investment—yes, investment—in a grubbing grant would recoup that expenditure within two years and bring that money home to the British taxpayer. Surely even the dead hand of the Treasury must understand the benefit of doing that—or can they see no further than next Budget day?
For once we have unity of purpose between the whole of the top fruit growers of the Community in seeking part, if not all, of that which we have agreed and for which we have been working for years. Please do not now let our Government's voice be either silent or dissenting.
I ask again therefore for an assurance from the Minister that the British voice will be heard loud, clear and forcefully in support of our industry and of our European colleagues who, in some places, are worse hit than ourselves. I hope that the four voices here this afternoon are not just crying in the wilderness, a wilderness that our fruit growing industry may well become—perhaps comparable to the desert that is your Lordships' House on a bank holiday Friday afternoon.
4.4 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne:My Lords, perhaps I may say a word in this desert. I begin by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for drawing attention to the dilemma in which the top fruit growing industry in this country and throughout Europe finds itself. I should declare my involvement in the industry. I am a fruit grower. I chair the Strathclyde Marketing Initiative for the tree fruit sector. I wish to return to that subject in a moment. I also farm arable and dairy crops. However, I have always said that I feel much happier in the long term in the unsupported sector of horticulture. It means that we have to live in the real world with market pressures, but at least to a certain extent we are masters of our own fortunes.
'Therefore, it would be hypocritical of me, to say the least, if I were to say now that we require subventions and payments from the Government. I do not think that that is the long-term solution. We must do what we always said we wanted to do and live on our own resources.
However, the problem arises that in the misguided policies of the European Community over the past 20 years or more, under the common agricultural policy the Government have intervened massively in the form of interventions and have prevented market forces operating. As has been pointed out so clearly by both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, we now have a situation of chronic surplus, positively encouraged by the procedure of intervention and buying in products which do not meet market prices. We know well that the lower cost production
992
systems, particularly in southern Europe, are able to meet their marginal costs. There is no inducement to remove surplus production, and intervention has therefore accentuated the problem. That is why we have a problem which is immediate and which is driving a large number of producers, both in this country and in Europe, into bankruptcy. I think that that is not in dispute. The figures are clear and we have heard enough already today to understand the nature of the problem.
Having said all that, I believe that it is very much for the United Kingdom apple industry to demonstrate what it can do itself to help resolve the problems it finds itself in. That does not mean that Government do not have a role. But the Government are entitled to hear from the industry just what measures it proposes to take in order to meet some of the difficulties.
The first and foremost requirement is for the industry to protect its brands. Its great success, probably unique in all agricultural and horticultural marketing, has been to promote its brands. The average UK consumer knows very well about the English Cox and the English Bramley. They are held in high regard. It is probably a classic story of the promotion of a brand which is owned by a large number of different people.
But it is a vulnerable situation. Things go wrong— and let us admit it, the past year was not the easiest for us growers, and early in the season at least we produced some Coxes which damaged the brand. That is not to say that it continued throughout the season, nor that it was universal throughout the season. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to ensure that we try, as we clearly must, to sell apples at a premium and we must make sure that we produce a premium product.
The way in which we do that is to ensure that we keep our costs as low as possible, but not at the expense of packaging, promotion or the links with the marketing chain. We need to develop alternative markets for apple juice, again branded by Coxes and Bramleys. There is an enormous market for single strength apple juices, but it needs all the links in the chain—the producer, the processor, marketing and retailers—to collaborate. That is precisely where the Strathclyde Marketing Initiative, and other marketing initiatives can and will make a contribution.
I know that the Ministry of Agriculture's marketing task force is also looking carefully at the problem, as is, the president of the NFU, David Naish, with a marketing group reporting to the Prime Minister. They and others are looking at the opportunities and they all agree that the United Kingdom top fruit industry has had more successes than failures in the past. It dealt with the Golden Delicious onslaught of 1979–1980; it established a premium in the market. What we are now seeing is that premium being eroded, mainly because of the chronic surpluses throughout the world. Those surpluses arose not just with the commodity price but the premium prices which are required by UK apple growers.
If anyone is in any doubt—and with this select number of noble Lords present no one can be in any doubt—about why United Kingdom apple producers need a premium price, it is simply because they will never grow the yields of southern Europe. The closer

993
you are to the limit of apple growing, the lower your yields and the higher the flavour. It is a simple correlation. We must make it quite clear that we must always look for high value, almost niche varieties, of which Cox is the best known in the country.
So much for the role of the industry. I do not think that anyone who has spoken so far would deny that it is for the United Kingdom industry to contribute to resolving this great problem before the haemorrhage drives a large part of the industry out of business. But there is a role for government. It is important to stress, as did two previous speakers, the serious concerns caused by the IACS regulations that growers have no collateral when they come to sell, which of course acts as little inducement to grub. That is a serious concern.
Above all, there is a simple and urgent necessity to resolve the EC's own follies. The EC has been encouraging the retention of structural surpluses by misguided intervention schemes. That must be resolved immediately by a grubbing scheme allied to an effective ban on replanting. The two must go together. And there must ultimately be elimination of the intervention scheme. I would like to see that happen sooner rather than later. I am told that that is unrealistic. There would be too many howls of protest from other member states. Well, so be it. But let us be quite clear that intervention has served this country to no purpose whatsoever. As I do not belong to a co-operative I do not qualify for the scheme anyway. That is why I have little regard for intervention.
Turning to the role of government, if government accept, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister does, that growers are prepared to help themselves—indeed, I know that the Minister of State is taking a great deal of interest in this matter and has consulted, and will continue to consult, growers—we could ask the Ministry of Agriculture if it would look at the opportunities that exist, which MAFF particularly is able to implement, to promote the industry.
One of the great strengths of the industry is the national fruit collections at Brogdale. It is the largest collection of top fruit in the world. It is a unique resource, and it demonstrates just what an enormous diversity of varieties there is in this country. It is owned by the Ministry of Agriculture and is managed by the Brogdale Horticultural Trust, of which I must declare that I am the chairman, along with Wye College, which looks after the scientific remit. But that will not solve the immediate problems, though if we are looking at the long term we have to exploit that resource more successfully. I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture could consider sponsoring a demonstration orchard with a number of other varieties—a number of different russet varieties, not necessarily the ones that are known at the moment, but a number of the old-fashioned varieties, a number of traditional regional varieties. Let us put those into a demonstration orchard and get them sponsored also by other sectors of industry. I am sure that some of the multiples which have been so supportive, as the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, reminded us, would also help.
994
That is the sort of way in which we shall be able to demonstrate to the English public that an English apple is so different from the competition apples from overseas. It is not a commodity article. It is something that they will recognise as unique. There is no way that the English consumer, if he were aware of the predicament and the danger of the loss of English apples, would tolerate the loss of this valuable asset. It is part of the shopping basket. Perhaps in my capacity as chairman of the trust I might write to the Minister later about that idea.
I should like to end on the note that the industry is not finished. It is clearly having an extremely hard time. It has had a hard time before and has been resilient. It will remain positive. It has ideas as to how it can improve its position in the market. But there is a short-term crisis, and that crisis is, I believe, for the Council of Ministers to resolve.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I am in no way involved with the apple-growing industry. I do not have to declare an interest because I have only four apple trees in my garden and, alas, the deer that come over the fence have barked those completely. It looks as though they are going to die and will have to be grubbed up anyway. However, I have friends within the industry and I have a great deal of concern for its future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we in this country produce only some 30 per cent. of our consumption. The imports that we need are shared in approximately equal proportions between those from North America, the southern hemisphere and the European Community. Although it is obvious from that that the United Kingdom industry itself is not in structural surplus, it is indeed part of a structural surplus within the United Kingdom. The resultant overproduction of that surplus seriously affects our growers owing to the on-going supplies of under-priced fruit in the home market, both from the European Union and the southern hemisphere.
One worrying aspect of the situation is that in 1982–84 the average incomes for fruit farmers were higher than those for 1989–93. Over that decade market share was lost to imports from other European states and third countries. The result has been that the returns of the United Kingdom dessert apple growers have been well short of production costs for the past two years or so. The seriousness of the situation facing apple growers cannot be overemphasised. They are facing major cumulative losses from which many, including the most efficient, may not be able to recover.
How do we address the problem? What policies do we adopt? Unless some action is taken quickly, the consequences for the United Kingdom's industry could be catastrophic.
Following the two years of surplus in the European Union, there are reports of significant plantings shortly to come on stream on the Continent. That must exacerbate the unfavourable supply situation because the demand probably remains fairly static.
The view of the National Farmers Union is that the intervention payment system, as has already been

995
explained, is to a large extent responsible for the structural surplus. The system has moved away from its original objective of intervening when there is the occasional surplus to become a permanent feature, breeding dependency. The National Farmers Union would like to improve the intervention system by making it unattractive to produce uncommercial varieties and to reduce intervention prices for all varieties below the cost of production, making them unattractive to growers for intervention.
The British Government appear to support the National Farmers Union on that issue. But we should like them to take a more forceful position. I shall be happy to hear the observations of my noble friend the Minister on that matter. Persistently intervened varieties must be penalised by a reduction in their intervention prices.
But the most pressing policy that all farming organisations in the European Union have advocated is the grubbing up scheme. COPA/COGECA proposed that growers should be grant-aided to grub up orchards in order to reduce the apple area within the European Union to bring production capacity into line with demand. If that policy is implemented, steps need to be taken to ensure that the land taken out of apple production is not utilised in such a way as to increase surpluses in other products that may already be in over-supply. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it would be worth while if it could be incorporated into the set-aside system or something similar.
As has already been stated, and I can only endorse what has been said, the policy on third country imports is a major concern. The industry is alarmed about the recent agreement between the European Union and Chile in which the European Union made significant concessions beyond those agreed in the GATT. As has been said, the New Zealanders say that they will seek identical terms to those obtained by the Chilians. And why not? They have a powerful argument. GATT specifies that bilateral agreements between GATT signatories must not prejudice trade between the signatories of the bilateral agreement and other GATT signatories. Therefore we urge the British Government to object strongly to the agreement between the EU and Chile.
There are other means of encouraging the production and marketing of our apples. But that is not for me to discuss because I am not an expert. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in that respect, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising what is a vitally important issue for our home producers.
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating what has been a stimulating discussion on this most important issue. The apple sector is a major employer and occupies a special position in the rural economy in certain parts of the country.
996
I regret that we do not have economic information on the profits or losses of apple growers per se. Our data are collected on a more aggregated basis. In part that is because it is unlikely that many growers' incomes would be dependent solely on apples. Most grow a range of fruit and even other crops as well. But the information I do have for specialist fruit growers indicates that, following substantial increases in income for each year from 1988–89 to 1991–92, there was a marked decrease in 1992.93. Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.
What I can say is that my right honourable friend the Minister and my honourable friend the Minister of State met apple growers regularly throughout the season and know from their discussions that the last two years have been difficult ones for them. We recognise that growers are very worried and that there is deep concern about the market and indeed about the future of apple growing in this country. Although incomes on all other major faun types increased, average farm incomes on specialist fruit and other horticultural holdings fell in 1992–93. The value of apple output marketed in the UK is estimated to have decreased by 6 per cent. in the calendar year 1993 compared with increases for fruit as a whole and almost all other major agricultural outputs except pigs. That is not to say that all individual apple growers necessarily made losses in those years. Their trading performance will have depended on the quality of their product and their marketing skills. Those who can offer both will have done substantially better than those who cannot.
Of course the apple sector, like all parts of the industry which are reliant on weather conditions., is highly volatile and a certain amount of price fluctuation year on year is to be expected. Looking back to 1991 our apple growers enjoyed an excellent season when freak weather conditions, especially in France in the spring, led to a short crop in Europe. Even last year when prices were generally very depressed for dessert apples, shortages of Bramley apples in Northern Ireland meant that Bramley growers in England did rather better than their dessert growing colleagues. But that is not in any way to trivialise the difficulties of the sector, nor to suggest that these problems are entirely weather related.
The principal cause of the low prices in 1992 and 1993 was the very large crop in Europe which led to considerable oversupply within the Community. We believe that that oversupply is exacerbated by the Community's regime for fruit and vegetables. That regime provides for intervention arrangements which encourage some growers to ignore market signals and to continue producing apples for which there is no market in the sure knowledge that they will have an outlet for their surplus.
This regime is overdue for reform and the Government have consistently been pressing the Commission to come forward with proposals. These were promised for the late spring, and I hope we will see proposals very soon. I sympathise with the frustration of growers at the Commission's delay. In the meantime, I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Cornwallis, that the Government have taken every opportunity to make clear to the Commission the shape

997
of the revised regime which we would wish to see and to impress upon it the importance of early reform. We have done so in the Council of Ministers, in direct bilaterals and in management committee.
We are determined that this reform should bring supply and demand on the EC market into better balance. As my noble friend Lord Selborne emphasised, a radical overhaul of the intervention system will need to be at the heart of this. That view is entirely supported by the growers. Such a reform will benefit both growers and in the longer term consumers as well, as they will continue to have available the excellent home-grown product which we all so much enjoy. Ideally, we should like to see intervention abolished altogether, which would allow a truly market driven sector. However, we recognise that this will not be achievable immediately because the social and political consequences of an abrupt end to the existing support system would be unacceptable.
As a first step, picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord Wise, we are looking for changes which will target those varieties which are currently withdrawn the most. In the apple sector, for example, it is notable that certain varieties form the bulk of withdrawn produce and we should like to see prices set to discourage this. We should also like to see a tightening up of the stabiliser mechanism which reduces levels of aid when a certain threshold has been breached. This mechanism is designed to limit the level of expenditure on intervention but it clearly is not working as effectively as it should. We shall also seek to ensure that any measures introduced are not over-regulatory or burdensome on business. The last thing the apple industry needs is more red tape.
I know that some growers would also like to see the immediate introduction of an orchard grubbing scheme for apple growers. All speakers today have advocated such a scheme. This is something which needs to be considered very carefully. Some member states, particularly the Netherlands, have asked at recent Councils for a scheme to be introduced ahead of the wider reform package. But we have to remember that the earlier scheme was not successful in reducing surplus production. We would not want to see another costly and ineffective scheme introduced in isolation.
However, we have indicated to the Commission that we accept that there may well have to be certain compensating measures to go along with reduction in the levels of support for intervention. No grower can be expected to cope with a sudden reduction in a long-standing form of support. That is certainly true for growers in the UK, where in 1992–93 around 6 per cent. of the apple crop was withdrawn from the market. It is even more true in France, where withdrawals apply to 35 per cent. of the apple crop. In Greece the situation was even more dramatic—in 1992–93, 76 per cent. of the nectarine crop and 61 per cent. of the peach crop were withdrawn.
We have therefore told the Commission that we could accept an apple grubbing scheme with the proviso that it is firmly linked to an overhaul of the intervention arrangements. This is a line which we have made clear
998
in the Agriculture Council. My honourable friend the Minister of State agreed with key growers during his visit to Brogdale on Tuesday that early discussions would be appropriate to consider what form the scheme should take. We need to avoid the problems associated with earlier schemes. For example, we need to consider very carefully how to prevent grubbed up apple trees being replaced by production on other holdings.
We have also indicated to the Commission that we could accept other measures such as schemes designed to encourage consumption which will benefit not just our growers but also consumers. On average the UK has one of the lowest levels of consumption of fruit and vegetables in the whole of Europe. The Health Education Authority's campaign for healthy eating is a useful step in this respect, but I am sure we could do more to encourage greater consumption of fruit and vegetables. As my right honourable friend the Minister said in another place recently, if every consumer ate only one more of our excellent Cox apples each week, our growers would be in a much stronger position. I commend her advice to your Lordships.
Furthermore, we have told the Commission that we are prepared to consider grants to improve the facilities for storage of apples provided these could be shown to be cost effective.
I hope I have made it clear that there are a number of ways the reform of the fruit and vegetable régime could improve the structure of the industry. But we must get the balance of the package right, and this has to be based in the first instance on reducing intervention.
Lord Carter: My Lords, what the Minister is saying is extremely helpful and encouraging. But it is not clear whether the measures which the Government are proposing will be in advance of the review which is taking place in the Commission of the whole fruit and vegetable sector. Do the Government see the proposals which they are pressing as being dealt with in advance of the review or do we have to wait for the whole review?
Earl Howe: We are pressing for these measures to be brought in as speedily as possible and, if possible, in advance of the wider review, but realistically they may coincide. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, pointed to the over-supply of apples in Europe and said that the United Kingdom, taken on its own, is not in surplus. That latter statement, though true, misses one of the key points of concern; namely, the fact that the consumer wants more than one variety of apple to choose from. He wants choice. The success of South Africa and New Zealand in marketing apples is based on high quality, on branding and on a great deal of variety. Even France offers a range of varieties. To replicate that kind of marketing success requires better organisation within the industry itself. I shall come to that area in a moment.
The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Cornwallis, and my noble friend Lord Wise also referred to the world supply. The impact of world surpluses should not of course be discounted, especially when we look at countries such as Chile which have substantially increased their plantings and whose market organisation is weak. I believe that, subject to Commission

999
proposals, the GATT should prove helpful in this context. But to a degree it is for our trade to persuade others of the merits of orderly marketing. It is not helpful to think of import bans. The Government support liberalised trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned that the NFU was pressing for effective use of the reference price system. The GATT will of course replace that system by a more transparent one which should avoid the anomalies of the existing arrangements.
The noble Lord also referred to the agreement between the Community and Chile. Chile has agreed to drop its GATT panel on the Community's third country trade arrangements. That is good news because the effects of an unfavourable panel, as my noble friend the Minister made clear in the recent Council, could have been very damaging. In return, the Commission has agreed, subject to approval by the Council, to make certain amendments to the existing trade arrangements and to the Community's GATT offer. That will enable third countries to have somewhat easier access to Community markets. It is difficult to say whether that will lead to greater levels of imports from third countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about realistic alternatives for land which has been grubbed up. I do not know what terms and conditions might be applied to any grubbing-up scheme, but I agree that this is an area which needs very careful thought. However, the last scheme had no restrictions other than a ban on the replanting of apple trees. In those circumstances growers would be free to choose alternative uses. As the noble Lord mentioned, one possible solution would be crops for non-food use such as short-rotation coppice.
I have so far talked only about the difficulties of the sector, but there is much that is positive as well. We have a wealth of interesting and flavoursome varieties of applies. Coxes orange, our premier variety, is second to none. Properly marketed, they should still command a premium from consumers. I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Selborne about the crucial importance of protecting the brand.
The apple industry has worked very hard at promoting its product through television advertising and other media campaigns and through several other events designed to raise public awareness of British apples. I am thinking here particularly of Apple Day and Bramley Week and the publicity linked to those events. In addition there were several shows and exhibitions which demonstrated the fine quality of our apples. Ministers are always pleased to support such events where possible: for example, my honourable friend the Minister of State launched the main English apple season in October last year.
Organisations such as English Apples and Pears have made remarkable efforts in promoting the product. Here I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, who has just completed such an excellent job as its chairman. But I recognise that there is still a great deal which needs to be done. As I said a moment ago, I am told that we feature towards the bottom of the Euro-league for consumption of fresh fruit. I find this very difficult to believe given the high quality of our
1000
home produce, but clearly this is an area where progress needs to be made. Even within the low consumption figures, during the home season only about half that demand is sourced from this country. There must be market opportunities here to be grasped.
The industry has not of course been stagnant; it has been moving ahead with new ideas and developments. Varietal apple juices based on varieties such as Cox, Bramley and Russet are now finding their way on to the market. These make a delicious soft drink as I know myself and I would certainly commend them to the House. The export potential of the Bramley apple is another area which is only starting to be explored. The Bramley really is unrivalled as a cooking apple; it remains for us to draw this fact more to the attention of our EC partners.
Retailers too are doing their bit to help. Some of the multiples have made a point of stocking some of the lesser known traditional varieties of apples such as Blenheim Orange, Beauty of Bath and Ribston Pippin; and many, I know, made considerable efforts over the last season to market the unexpectedly high volume of English Coxes which were available.
Additionally, my honourable friend the Minister of State has been leading a horticultural project to investigate ways in which the whole horticultural industry might address some of the problems that it is facing. This project is nearing completion. I know that my honourable friend has made a particular point of talking to as many apple growers as possible in the course of his research. Indeed, only last. Tuesday, as I said earlier, he was at Brogdale Horticultural Trust where he met a number of growers.
One of the initiatives which has grown out of the project is a seminar for growers themselves to discuss the future of the English apple industry. This will take place on 12th May and will bring together some of the key growers and apple marketing groups to discuss the problems which the industry is facing. This will give key members of the industry the chance to have a frank discussion in an informal atmosphere, and to identify the ways forward for the industry. This is a format which we have found to work well in other sectors. My honourable friend the Minister of State will be opening the seminar and leading the discussion.
I know that many growers feel that their competitors in other member states are given unfair support and that this must be illegal. I must stress that there is nothing illegal about national aids provided they are approved by the Commission. Indeed, we have been offering national aids in the UK for many years. For example, over a five-year period between May 1989 and March this year we offered substantial grants for replanting orchards with more marketable varieties. A recent evaluation indicated that these grants were taken up by virtually all of our target population.
One area of concern to the Government is that British growers remain in marketing terms poorly organised and fragmented. This leads to high marketing costs and potential difficulties with supply. We have, therefore, introduced first the group marketing grants and will shortly be launching the marketing development scheme

1001
which will offer grants of up to £150,000 to improve marketing and marketing structures in horticulture and agriculture.
We are also spending nearly £2 million every year on apple research and development. We are targeting our research specifically at improving the industry's ability to meet the key market demands for better quality and flavour, reduced energy and chemical inputs, improved storage and shelf life as well as producing new commercially desirable varieties. Part of our new investment in a new molecular biology programme is devoted to using those innovative techniques to bring about important improvements in British dessert apples.
A sound and healthy scientific research and development base is one of the essential elements of ensuring the future viability of the UK top fruit industry. The £2 million that we are spending in this area underpins the applied research worth £300,000 per annum undertaken by the industry's levy funded body, the Apple and Pear Research Council. Together, we ensure that the necessary R&D is provided for the UK top fruit industry. Earlier this week my honourable friend the Minister of State met the chairman of the Apple and Pear Research Council, Professor Sir Colin Spedding, to discuss these joint research and development programmes and how best they can help the industry to success in the future.
I know that some growers, as well as my noble friend Lord Selborne, have ideas for developing the role of Brogdale. My colleagues and I will be very happy to listen to what they have in mind and I look forward to hearing from my noble friend in that respect.
Perhaps I may qualify a remark that I made earlier about grubbing grants and the timing of such a measure. I intended to say that any such measure would have to be part of a package, but it could be implemented before the rest of the package.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to hear the Minister say that. I have never before experienced a policy that was stated and changed within four minutes—but there we are.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in summary, there is no doubt that the current position of the apple sector is a difficult one. But the industry itself recognises that action must be taken and is organising itself to face the challenges. This is done with every encouragement and assistance from the Government, who fully appreciate the need for a strong and viable British apple sector.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wish to ask him to deal with the subject of information, which I raised. At present, there are four different acreage criteria for measurement and several different schemes for assessing information. It is desperately important for the coming season that the Ministry, which I am sure is willing, the organisations and the growers, should come together to produce one source of reliable information for the industry, the consumers and the purchasers.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord may like to note that MAFF and representatives of the industry—English Apples and Pears and the NFU—are meeting on 16th May to determine an improved information flow within the industry. I hope that that meeting will yield positive results.
Lord Wise: My Lords, are there any top fruit-producing countries which are placing restrictions on imports of top fruit? If so, that is restricting our European export capabilities. Should not some retaliatory measures be implemented against those countries?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I must reflect on my noble friend's question. Perhaps it is appropriate to mention the plant health requirements imposed by the United States. Their impact has long been a matter of concern to the EC Commission. In 1992 the Commission started a series of bilateral discussions with the United States aimed at proposing modifications to the US requirements. There is still a considerable way to go on this issue but we shall continue to press the Commission to maintain progress with the US authorities.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before five o'clock.

  LEGAL AID: EXPENDITURE
  LEGAL AID: EXPENDITURE
  SOUTH-WEST CUMBRIA: TRUNK ROADS
  SOUTH-WEST CUMBRIA: TRUNK ROADS
  SUBSIDIARITY
  SUBSIDIARITY
  SECURITY COUNCIL STATEMENT 31 JANUARY 1992: EFFECT
  SECURITY COUNCIL STATEMENT 31 JANUARY 1992: EFFECT
  BOSNIA: NATO AIR ACTION
  BOSNIA: NATO AIR ACTION
  KOREA: US COUNTER-PROLIFERATION POLICY
  KOREA: US COUNTER-PROLIFERATION POLICY
  WORCESTER FHSA: PAYMENTS TO GPs
  WORCESTER FHSA: PAYMENTS TO GPs
  OIL AND GAS: RESERVES
  OIL AND GAS: RESERVES
  FOSSIL FUELS: RESERVES
  FOSSIL FUELS: RESERVES
  STRUCTURAL FUNDS
  STRUCTURAL FUNDS
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  LAND REGISTRY AND PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  LAND REGISTRY AND PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS