Sitting of 8 December 1994

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 15 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Battery Hens
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to improve the welfare of battery hens.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): Regulations implementing directive 88/166 setting out minimum standards for the welfare of laying hens kept in battery cages will come fully into force on 1 January 1995.
    Mr. Lewis: Notwithstanding that reply, does the Minister agree that a comprehensive labelling system might be better for birds than those regulations? There is a great deal of misleading information in our shops about farm fresh or country fresh eggs. Would the welfare of battery hens not be improved if the shopper knew the exact origin of the eggs that he was buying?
    Mrs. Browning: We believe that it is important that the consumer is not misled in any way. We shall continue to monitor carefully any claims made on egg packaging.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many poultry farmers feel that we are applying the new regulations on cage sizes for battery hens much more stringently than our European partners? Why is it that we always seem to abide by the rules while our so-called partners appear not to do so?
    Mrs. Browning: I can assure my hon. Friend that the welfare of battery hens is of paramount importance. We have pressed for much higher standards, particularly in respect of cage sizes, which will apply, for example, to cages containing fewer than three birds. Therefore, although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's claim that other countries do not keep to the rules, we do, and we want to bring their standards up to our extremely high levels.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that it is not enough just to monitor the labelling of eggs? Is she aware that the National Opinion Poll organisation found that 34 per cent. of consumers thought that eggs labelled "farm
    456
    fresh" were free range when they were, in fact, battery eggs? Does she agree that it should not be left to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to introduce schemes such as the "Freedom Food" scheme, excellent though it is? We need less monitoring and more action.
    Mrs. Browning: I was discussing this matter with the industry only this week. It, too, is aware of the problem and is anxious to show the consumer that claims made on packaging are true and to ensure that the consumer is correctly informed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to monitor the matter carefully.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend continue to try to raise standards of welfare for battery hens in Europe while bearing it in mind that we are operating within a single market? Will she ensure that the Government do not introduce unilateral new regulations which would undermine our competitiveness?
    Mrs. Browning: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that, but she will be aware that the directive which I mentioned requires the Community to review its detail. We shall be asking specifically for significantly increased cage sizes and for the enrichment of cages by means of perches and scratching bars. We shall also ask for the regulations to pay particular attention to the welfare of laying hens which are not necessarily battery hens.

    York Offices
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Ministry's new office at King's Pool, York, will open; and how many staff will be recruited from the York area to work there.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The new offices at King's Pool opened on schedule on 10 October 1994. Around 250 local staff now work in these offices.
    Mr. Bayley: I am told by the personnel department at King's Pool that it is well pleased with the quality of the staff whom it has recruited locally. In just over a year, the Ministry will be recruiting staff for the central science laboratory at Sand Hutton just outside York. How many local staff does the Minister expect to recruit then, and will the Ministry again give priority to providing jobs for other civil servants, principally those from the Ministry of Defence, who are being made redundant in north Yorkshire?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Ministry is, indeed, extremely pleased with the quality of people, which may surprise the hon. Gentleman. The estimate is that between 150 and 250 locally employed staff will be needed at the central science laboratory when it is completed in 1996, if it is still relevant then. As in the case of the development in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we will see whether we can employ people, particularly from the Ministry of Defence, in the area where we have taken on a number of people—about 100, I think.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I commend the ancient northern capital to my right hon. Friend, as my wife was at university there. Will he ensure that his Department's officials, wherever they are located, work hard in conjunction with those in the Department of the Environment on studying where the next generation of

    457
    farmers will come from, particularly as so many present farmers are near retirement and many sons and daughters—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to me—but later—how that refers to the area of York. It was a good try, but even in the season of good will, I cannot allow that.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am referring to the work of officials situated at York.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might make that clear at the beginning. We are not terribly interested where his wife was educated, provided that she was educated.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
    Will my right hon. Friend's officials at York work hard on this important matter and will they pay particular attention to the problems posed for the new generation of farmers by the present price of leasing milk quota?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My officials based in York and elsewhere will, of course, take those matters seriously. I can assure my hon. Friend that the strength of the young farmers clubs in the area of York means that there is a supply of good farmers coming from that neighbourhood.

    Infant Formulae
    Mr. Faber: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to lay before Parliament the final version of the infant formula and follow-on formula regulations.
    Mrs. Browning: We hope to lay these regulations shortly.
    Mr. Faber: Is my hon. Friend aware that the continuing delay is causing grave uncertainty for companies such as Cow and Gate in my constituency? Can she at least give them some reassurance that when the regulations are laid before Parliament, they will contain none of the ludicrous over-regulation contained in the draft regulations last year, in particular a proposed ban on the marketing and advertising of baby milk, which would deprive millions of mothers of the right to choose how to feed and bring up their children?
    Mrs. Browning: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, particularly as he raised it in an Adjournment debate in April. I can assure him that we have received a wide range of submissions, both for and against. That is why there has been a delay; we really do need to consider them all carefully. I hope that it will not be too long before we are able to give him a decision, but I can assure him that all the points that he has raised today are being taken into consideration.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister not be persuaded by the arguments of commercial interests, many of which are profit hungry, and remember that all the studies prove that the best, the most effective and the healthiest way in which to feed infants is the natural way?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are already some voluntary restrictions in that area. Although, of course, we would not disagree with his suggestion that breast milk is the most favourable method, we are aware that there are mothers who unfortunately
    458
    cannot breast feed, and I would not wish from the Dispatch Box to make them feel that they were under some pressure in that area. All views will be taken into account.

    Apples
    Mr. Lester: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions he took on apple day to help the apple industry.
    5. Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to encourage British shops to sell British apples, in place of foreign imports.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): On apple day and at the Marden fruit show, as on other occasions, I have taken part in initiatives to promote British apples in order to assist their greater sale.
    Mr. Lester: My hon. Friend will agree that British apples are among the best in the world, particularly the Bramley apple, which comes from Southwell in Nottinghamshire. Will he consider mounting a national apple pie competition, of pies made with Bramley apples, so that those who do not understand how good those apples are and how scrumptious are apple pies made with them can do so?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, who comes from Nottingham, the home of the Bramley apple, is entirely in apple pie order. At the start of the promotion of Bramley apples this year, I took part in an apple pie-making activity and will certainly commend his very excellent idea to those in English apples and pears who do such a marvellous job in promoting our excellent apples.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although it is welcome, the awarding of grants for the grubbing out of redundant orchards has not yet tackled the problem? Will he urge the Commission to put into effect its current proposal to reduce the intervention price of apples? Furthermore, does he agree that French Golden Delicious, which have invaded our shores, are—being French—tasteless, and are neither golden nor delicious? [HON. MEMBERS: "Super!"] Does he agree that English Coxes are the best?
    Mr. Jack: I certainly agree with the findings of my hon. Friend's discerning palate, and not with the somewhat disparaging cry of "Super!" from Opposition Members.
    My hon. Friend went to the heart of the matter when he mentioned the grubbing grant. We have had 166 applications in this country for 1,600 hectares, but it is crucial that, in the long term, taking out surplus apples has the maximum effect in Italy and France, where apples are grown not for the marketplace but for intervention purposes. In the long term, we should phase out intervention altogether: it distorts the market unnecessarily.
    Mr. Enright: In his pursuit of British apples, will the Minister also not discriminate against English rhubarb? Will he set up a rhubarb day involving rhubarb pie, and take to making that dish?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I grew up in Yorkshire, and know a good bit of Wakefield

    459
    rhubarb when I see it. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) received a delegation of rhubarb growers, and he has done his best to promote that excellent vegetable—and, indeed, not to talk rhubarb.
    Mr. Graham: The Minister will remember one of the finest slogans ever used—"An apple a day keeps the doctor away". I have been eating apples in order to lose four stone, and I can recommend them as part of a healthy diet. We should do everything possible to help the British apple, because—as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) said—they are some of the finest apples produced in the world.
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted that the English apple industry has contributed to the hon. Gentleman's robust and healthy looks. He is absolutely right: the potential for more fruit consumption, which is mentioned in a recently published report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, shows just what can be done. Fruit consumption in this country is too low, but with the hon. Gentleman as an advertisement I am sure that more will be eaten.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the further reform of the common agricultural policy.
    8. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reform the common agricultural policy.
    12. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his policy group on the reform of the CAP.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I meet my European colleagues regularly to discuss all aspects of the common agricultural policy, including current proposals for the reform of those sectors not covered by the 1992 reform agreement, such as wine. However, in the long term, we will need a more fundamental reform. On 6 December, I announced the names of a group of independent experts who will help the Department and me to develop our thinking.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will never allow this country to become isolated in Europe? Does he agree that there are times when we must stand apart, be independent and fight for Britain's interests?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend gives a wise example. Although some voices in the European Community are beginning to support us in regard to fundamental reform of the CAP, for a long time we were alone in arguing for it. In that instance, Britain was right to be alone. The argument that we should never be isolated is very foolish, and would often lead to decisions that were not in Britain's best interests.
    Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend used to be Secretary of State for Health, and I know that he disapproves of the European Community's subsidising tobacco. I understand that the Department of Health spends £20 million on encouraging people not to smoke.
    460
    What plans will my right hon. Friend present to stop the Community from spending £500 million or more on tobacco growing?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right about both my personal views and the Government's policy. I think it is wrong for us, and some other countries in Europe, to campaign against smoking if the CAP then adopts a regime that subsidises the growing of tobacco. I hope that, over time, we shall win over more allies to the idea that we do not need such a regime.
    Mr. Lidington: Has my right hon. Friend assessed the likely impact on the CAP of the accession to the European Union of the Visegrad countries of central Europe? Is there any sign that the European Commission and other European countries are taking seriously the gravity of the challenge that that move will impose on the CAP?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has put his finger on what will be the cause of further fundamental change in the CAP, of which I am glad. I do not see how the CAP can take on board countries of central and eastern Europe—which, before the war and before the communists ruined their agricultural systems, were extremely powerful agricultural producers—without further fundamental reform. Some parts of the European Commission seem to be beginning to recognise that. Directorate-General II has recently issued a good report, known as the Munk report, that advances many of the same arguments as the Government. In his speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs conference last Friday, however, Commissioner Steichen did not seem to recognise the scale of the challenge that faces the agricultural part of the Commission.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Minister agree that the sugar sector would be a crucial part of any CAP reform and that any reform of that sector would heavily depend on our commitments under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which requires the European Community to reduce its sugar exports by about 36 per cent? Does he further agree that the two basic ways of achieving that are to reduce the quota or to reduce price? If those are the two basic elements, will he ensure that any quota reduction takes place in European Union countries whose quotas are in excess of their production requirements and that imports from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are protected, because they need that protection to develop?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. By far the best way of reforming the regime would be to bring down the price while protecting imports from ACP countries. The Commission's proposals are not nearly radical enough. Within what the Commission proposes, I shall do my best to ensure that British quotas are not discriminated against—after all, we consume up to the limit of our quota. I do not find anything with which to disagree in what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister confirm that nothing in the current CAP milk regime prevents him from taking action on the spiralling cost of the milk quota, including milk both for lease and for sale? Is that not a home-grown problem rather than a CAP problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that nothing in the CAP regime prevents him from using his powers to confiscate unused

    461
    quota from non-producers who hoard it for speculative purposes? Is he aware that many dairy farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy because of the problem?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It follows, just as night follows day, that, if the milk price goes up, the quota value goes up—that is what a market is all about. The hon. Gentleman is not right to say that this is a home-grown problem, because part of the problem derives from the fact that the national quota is lower than national consumption. If we could achieve the transferability of milk quota across national boundaries in the European Community, as many people have argued we should, a great deal of good would be done to relieve the pressure on people who are having to pay more for quota than they would like.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Department have any information on the degree of equability in the distribution of farm support, both among different-sized farms and among different regions in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister accept that any CAP reform must aim for greater equability in that regard and for the retention of at least the present level of employment in agricultural farming? Will he consider carefully the recommendations in the recent Friends of the Earth report entitled "Working Future" in relation to that matter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have to be careful about this argument because what we call small farms in the UK are large farms in terms of farm holdings in Europe. If we begin to accept the language of bias towards what Europe calls small farms, we shall ruin British farmers, large and small. Although it sounds an attractive slogan, I do not think that it is helpful in terms of British agricultural structure. Nothing will better maintain the welfare of people in the farming sector than the removal of as many quantitative controls as possible, which have grown in the short term, in a more fundamental, long-term reform of the CAP to bring it closer to the market and to allow people who have good products to sell them freely.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend use all his influence to try to ensure that CAP 3 takes all the rural economy into account and not just agriculture?
    Mr. Waldegrave: With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I have launched the process that will lead, next year, to the production of a White Paper that will cover the rural economy more generally. I therefore sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said, because when we consider the health of rural areas, we should look not only at agriculture but at a number of other sources of income and constraints on prosperity.

    Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if steps are being taken by the Ministry to restrict BIV-infected livestock from entering the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Browning: The Government have considered that very carefully, commissioning research and consulting not only independent scientific experts in this country, but the leading researchers in north America and Europe. There is no scientific evidence relating to BIV that would justify
    462
    placing restrictions on livestock to be imported into the United Kingdom, and we are not aware that such restrictions have been imposed by any other country.
    Mr. Cox: Although I note that reply, is the Minister aware that that view is not held by many in the farming community? There is clear evidence that cattle from central Europe, which are imported here via western Europe, are infected with BIV. In view of the high quality of British cattle stocks, will the Minister assure the House that the quality and health of animals imported to Britain will be subject to rigid control?
    Mrs. Browning: I can indeed assure the hon. Gentleman of that. He will be aware that harmonised EC regulations governing the importation of cattle and animals are now in force. They require that an imported animal must have a certificate of health, signed by a veterinarian from the exporter country, and put the onus on the importers to ensure that they are satisfied that that animal is healthy and has the necessary certification.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does not Milk Marque take a different view by refusing to purchase milk from the BIV-affected farm in Cheshire? If it turns out that that strain of BIV is particularly virulent, is it not irresponsible of the Government not to take any precautions now, before the results of the investigation are known? They should make the disease notifiable, compensate the farmer and undertake an in-depth study of the disease. The potential danger posed to the dairy industry by that disease is disastrous.
    Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that line, because it overstates the importance of the virus. We would not normally discuss the farm in Cheshire in detail, but given that the owners have made public the information relating to their animals, it is important to make the case clear. The decision by the Milk Marketing Board and, subsequently, Milk Marque not to purchase the milk is purely a commercial decision between those organisations and the owners of the milk.
    For many years, the virus has occurred in numerous cases in America, Canada and, in particular, Australia. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have not been advised by those countries to restrict the sale and use of milk. I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that, even if the virus is detected in raw milk, it is killed by pasteurisation.

    Rural White Paper
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made on the rural White Paper.
    Mr. Waldegrave: An interdepartmental group of officials has been set up, led jointly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. We have been in touch with more than 200 organisations to request their views. A very wide welcome has been received from interested organisations.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rural White Paper is a magnificent opportunity for our rural areas—in particular, their towns and villages—to make considerable progress? Should we not broaden the

    463
    scope of the White Paper to take in other Departments of State, so that they, too, consider their services to the rural areas?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is a good opportunity. For many years, people have argued for a White Paper that looked across the board at policy affecting the rural economy. I agree with my hon. Friend that other Departments should be involved. The steering group is based on the two principal Departments, but others, such as Education, Transport and the Home Office, will be closely involved.
    Dr. Strang: Before the Government start to write the White Paper, will the Minister remove the sword of Damocles that he is hanging over the heads of hundreds of thousands of rural workers? Since the report by the London School of Economics, which the Government commissioned, has repudiated any adverse link between minimum wage rates and employment levels, will the right hon. Gentleman now abandon his plan to abolish the agricultural wages boards and, instead, retain them as they stand?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are still considering the replies which we have received, which were not unanimous. There are two views on the matter, which I am considering.
    Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is good news that he and the Department of the Environment are working closely together to take policies forward? Does he agree that one of the most beneficial things for the countryside generally would be the spread of farm woodlands? Will he and his Department ensure that pressure is put on the Commission to allow the planting of farm woodlands to count against set-aside?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Immediately after questions in the House today, I shall be meeting the German Minister, Herr Borchert, who holds the presidency of the Agriculture Council. I shall be raising that matter with him in the hope that we can at least get an agreement in principle on what my hon. Friend is arguing for in the Council next week.

    Agricultural Tenancies
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had indicating support for the Government's proposed changes to agricultural tenancies.
    Mr. Waldegrave: During the last 18 months my Department has received 185 representations via hon. Members and a further 28 addressed to Ministers directly. The majority of these were supportive. The proposals in the Bill are based on an agreement between the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs.
    Mrs. Knight: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that an independent survey has estimated that, as a result of his proposals, there will be an increase of 10 per cent. in the land available to let? Does he agree that that will give significant encouragement, particularly to young farmers to enter the industry?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There has been an immensely wide welcome for the proposals, and I can confirm that there
    464
    has been such an independent survey. The Institute of Chartered Surveyors said that there may be 1 million acres of land under management by its members which are likely to come forward for new tenancies as a result of the measure. That is welcome indeed.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the net United Kingdom contribution to the common agricultural policy for each of the last 10 years as measured in current prices.
    Mr. Jack: The United Kingdom does not contribute to the CAP directly but to the Community budget as a whole.
    Mr. Simpson: Is the Minister aware that, as part of our contribution to the budget as a whole, we have been contributing to the accumulation of a wine lake which amounts now to 19 billion bottles of wine? That could provide a Christmas gift of 500 bottles of wine to every adult in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that—while he is not in a position to distribute the surplus freely—it is a wasted accumulation to which we ought not to contribute?
    Mr. Jack: A voice of irreverence behind me has suggested that the hon. Gentleman might like to contribute to removing some of that lake himself.
    On a more serious note, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be including in his discussions with the German presidency the question of the reform of the wine regime which the Community must and will address.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend concur that the contribution is by no means a one-way street? In this country, out of £600 million pounds of compensation payments, £100 million comes from the Treasury and £500 million from Europe.
    Mr. Jack: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to issues connected with hill farms and her analysis, which points to greater receipts from Community schemes to hill farmers of both sheep and cattle, is absolutely right. I was also delighted by my right hon. Friend's announcement that we were able to maintain unchanged this year's hill livestock compensatory allowance payments.
    Dr. Strang: The Secretary of State's think tank is all very well, but when will the Government seriously tackle common agricultural policy fraud? Does he recognise that fraud is inherent in the market support mechanisms of the CAP? Will he now take the bull by the horns and come out unequivocally against the open-ended state intervention buying of all agricultural commodities?
    Mr. Jack: It sounds to me as though there is a typical Opposition stance on this: pull out the rug from underneath the farmers, with no idea whatever. The Government, at least, are thinking carefully about the future of the CAP. Judging by the hon. Gentleman's question, he has not a thought in his head. I heard him interviewed on "Farming Today". When asked what he would do, there was a bit of radio silence. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge what the United Kingdom has done in leading the fight against fraud. If he were keeping up with affairs, he would know that only yesterday we agreed the beginning of a Community black list to stop fraudsters illegally claiming money in different parts of the

    465
    Community when they are under investigation. With our support, more than 50 new members of staff have been allocated within the Community's anti-fraud unit. I could go on. The Conservative party takes the fight against fraud extremely seriously.

    Research
    Sir Peter Emery: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sum was spent by his Department on research for the last three years; what percentage this was of the total annual budget; what is the budget for the forthcoming year; what percentage this is of his total budget; and what additional new research is to be undertaken.
    Mr. Jack: The Ministry has spent £121.5 million, £132.9 million and £137.3 million respectively. This represents 17 per cent., 18 per cent. and 19 per cent. of the total annual budgets for those years. Funding for a wide range of research and development in 1995–96 will be around £140 million or 17 per cent. of the total budget.
    Sir Peter Emery: The increase which the Minister announced is obviously welcome. What part of it applies to the west country? Will he ensure that aspects of research on grasslands, which are important in terms of milk production, will continue?
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend refers to the £140 million, which represents a maintenance of our resources for research and development following successful negotiations by my right hon. Friend the Minister. We do not allocate research and development funds by region, but the type of project on silage to which my right hon. Friend refers will benefit not only west country farmers but dairy farmers throughout the United Kingdom. Such work is safeguarded by our excellent settlement on research and development.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Minister commissioned, or will he commission, research into the use of the flavour enhancer monosodium glutamate, which is now used in almost every manufactured food product, including bread? It has no nutritional value and there is strong evidence that it builds up a severe allergy that is affecting many people. Is not the time now right to take a proper look at the matter?
    Mr. Jack: I am not aware of any research that I have commissioned on that subject. On food safety, great care is taken before an ingredient is allowed to be used. However, if the hon. Gentleman knows of research that he believes should be evaluated, I shall ensure that a scientist does that job.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that at Mylnefield in Tayside, we have one of the finest crop research centres in existence? It is important that it continues its good work, particularly its research into raspberries and other crop fruits but also into potatoes, which are vital to the Tayside economy.
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that my hon. Friend gives yet another indication of how Government-funded research is helping to boost prospects, particularly for British horticulture. As we said earlier, the opportunity for our raspberries—[Interruption.] If hon. Members are not careful, I shall blow them one. The work being undertaken is resulting in increased fruit consumption. I hope that the
    466
    research to which my hon. Friend referred will enable our raspberry growers to take full advantage of those commercial possibilities.

    Carcase Meat
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote the export of carcase meat.
    Mr. Jack: We continue to support the Meat and Livestock Commission's excellent promotion of meat products and exports.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that, if he banned the export of live animals, the British slaughterhouse industry could cope with the increased throughput of some 2 billion animals? Does he agree that such a step would not only remove some of the barbaric practices in the transport of live animals but stop the export of British jobs?
    Mr. Jack: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman's question does not relate the enormous amount of work that my right hon. Friend the Minister is undertaking to try to find a Europe-wide solution to improve the welfare of animals in transit. However, I gather from the nature of his question that the hon. Gentleman would, at a stroke, do away with a trade worth £200 million to British farmers, and farmers will have noted carefully the terms in which he put it.
    The Meat and Livestock Commission is working extremely hard to open up new opportunities for sales of carcase beef, and the work that we have done on bovine spongiform encephalopathy has kept European markets such as Germany open to us. It is sad that, on the day that we announced the new opportunities for young beef cattle to be exported from the United Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman does not refer to that in his question.
    Mr. Marland: Can my hon. Friend confirm that exports of British meat have almost doubled since 1991, thereby emphasising that, internationally, British meat is seen to be of the highest standard? It is important to keep that industry alive and vital. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in 1976, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) introduced statutory succession rights for tenants, that he thereby denied new entrants the opportunity of coming into the farming market, that it was a disgraceful thing to do and that we should quickly undo that bad work?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The meat industry will be worth £891 million in exports this year and it is certainly true that the reform of agricultural tenancy, which hon. Members on the Conservative Benches unequivocally support, will open the door to new, young, innovative farmers who will be able to take advantage of the excellent opportunities for exporting British meat.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the animal welfare organisations and the travelling public on putting such pressure on the ferry companies that most of them have banned the carrying of live animals across the channel?
    Mr. Jack: What I will do is join those people who support my right hon. Friend the Minister in his attempt to find a Europe-wide solution to ensure that continental

    467
    practice is brought up to the standard of the United Kingdom. I am disappointed that, in spite of his tremendous efforts, people have unilaterally withdrawn an important transport link for our cattle producers. It is perhaps a sad day when they have not listened to what the Minister has done, especially in working to develop a code of practice, to regulate the movement of live animals into Europe.

    Nitrates
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to defend United Kingdom interests in respect of new EC provisions on the level of nitrates in leafy salads and vegetables.
    Mrs. Browning: We have firmly opposed the proposal and demanded its withdrawal. It is now blocked while the Commission examines the comprehensive dossier that we have sent in, challenging the scientific basis for the measure and detailing the serious economic implications that it would have for our glasshouse growers.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that British lettuces are perfectly safe and nutritious, and that distinguished scientists have shown that there is no public health problem that justifies a regulation?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is exactly right. In the UK, intakes of nitrate in vegetables are well below the acceptable daily limit and are calculated on a very sound scientific basis. We want to share that scientific information with our partners in Europe, where we believe that the scientific basis has not been as sound as our own.
    Mr. Cohen: Do not British farmers use far too much pesticide on their lettuces and salad items, and should not the Minister concentrate on telling them to use less, rather than attacking the Common Market?
    Mrs. Browning: The specific problem relates to lettuce grown in glasshouses, not lettuce grown in the open. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are sure, from our scientific basis, that British lettuces are quite safe to eat. In fact, I would encourage hon. Members to eat more of them, because British lettuces are good for you.

    Agricultural Tenancies
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the proposals in the Agricultural Tenancies Bill on the supply of farmland available for rent.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Recent research carried out independently by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggests that, if enacted, the proposed reforms could be expected to increase the area of let land by up to 10 per cent. of its current level.
    Mr. Tredinnick: How many tenancies were lost as a result of the 1976 tenancy laws, and are there any provisions in the Bill to enable tenants who improve their land to receive adequate compensation when they give up their tenancies?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One of the important reforms in the Bill is the strengthening of the hand of the tenant in relation to compensation for investment that he may have made during his tenancy. That will equalise the position.
    468
    My hon. Friend is correct to say that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) wrongly predicted the outcome of the Bill that he introduced, I am sure in good faith, in 1976. He said then that there would be no significant drop in the supply of tenanted farms. As he will be honest enough to admit, there has been a catastrophic drop in the supply of tenanted farms. I hope that he has learned from the mistake that he made at that time.

    Coastal Defences
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Ministry is spending this year on improving coastal defences against flooding from the sea.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My Department expects to provide some £19 million in grant towards the cost of improving coastal defences against flooding from the sea in 1994–95.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. I welcome the work that the National Rivers Authority is doing to evaluate different means of sea defences, including managed retreat. But will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the Government's policy to protect, not just populated areas, but prime agricultural land?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can, indeed, confirm that my hon. Friend is right. There may be areas where it is better not to waste money on defences that will be overwhelmed. The importance of defending both human habitation and prime agricultural land is always taken into consideration.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend convey my best wishes to the officials who will be leading the negotiations tomorrow with Sinn Fein-IRA? Will he also accept my congratulations on the way in which he has handled the peace process? Could he ensure that, on day one it is made crystal clear that there can be no real progress unless all paramilitaries give up weapons and intimidation? Will he also make it crystal clear that there can never be any question of an amnesty for murderers or bombers?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to feel strongly about these matters. Our position is clear: those people convicted of criminal offences will serve their sentences and an amnesty for murderers simply does not arise.
    Sinn Fein must accept unequivocally the rules of democratic politics. Guns and bombs need to be taken out of commission and intimidation must end—that is, of course, equally true for the loyalist paramilitaries. We have invited the loyalist political representatives to begin a separate exploratory dialogue with the Government on

    469
    15 December. I hope that both they and Sinn Fein will show a serious commitment to exclusively peaceful methods so that we can ensure that a peace remains and becomes stable in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Blair: May I say how much I support what the Prime Minister has just said on Northern Ireland?
    Does the Prime Minister recall that last year he said that he was unequivocally against a referendum on Europe—a view that he has repeated this year—yet last night he said that he did not rule one out? What has changed?
    The Prime Minister: I continue to welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support on Northern Ireland. It is a strength to the peace process that it carries the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House. On the subject of a referendum, let me make clear the point that I made yesterday—there are many people who see the referendum simply as a tactical device. I strongly suspect that that is true of many Opposition Members. But I do not see it in that fashion; we have to consider the constitutional implications for British democracy of referendums generally—there are advantages and there are disadvantages. What I have said and what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said is that we are not prepared to rule one out.
    Mr. Blair: Is not it clear that what has changed is not the Prime Minister's belief about a referendum, but his ability to unite his party without one? Is that not his problem and that of the country—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Blair: I see that the yobbos are out in force today. Is not this the right hon. Gentleman's problem? Whether it is the referendum, or VAT, or Post Office privatisation, or the Tory rebels, is not his problem the fact that the Government's decisions are now being taken by a Cabinet of crisis managers, driven by each day's headlines, making or unmaking policy according to the tyranny of the factions—when what this country is crying out for is a Government who will serve the national interest?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman feels that way about referendums, he will explain why he is committed to referendums for Scotland and for Wales. Perhaps it is to heal divisions among his right hon. and hon. Friends.
    As to the question of country and party, that is a sound bite which the right hon. Gentleman has been trailing around from studio to studio over the past day or so. Let me make it entirely clear to him: we shall put the country first, as we always do. It is precisely because we have put the country first that we have not shrunk from difficult decisions. This country is now in position for the longest, most sustained recovery for all its people that has been seen for many years.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a number of important initiatives to combat crime in rural areas such as Suffolk, including the introduction of a rural inspectorate in addition to cluster neighbourhood watch
    470
    schemes and parish constables? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that crime in the Bury St. Edmunds sub-division has fallen by 15.2 per cent. so far this year, and, in the Newmarket sub-division, by a full 22.2 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear those statistics on falling crime; they are mirrored in some other parts of the country. I understand that my hon. Friend was instrumental in setting up a drugs prevention initiative in Newmarket, and I hope that many other people will follow the same sort of idea in other parts of the country. The reduction in crime to which my hon. Friend refers demonstrates the effectiveness of a community-based approach.
    Mr. Ashdown: Let me remind the Prime Minister of his actual words, used in answer to me in June 1992. He said:
    "I am not in favour of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy".—[Official Report, 3 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 830.]
    Are we to take it that that was not a statement of principle but yet another flexible policy from our eternally flexible Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman accuses me one day of being inflexible and criticises me on the next for being flexible. I suppose that that shows that he himself is unsure whether flexibility is good or bad—just as he is unsure about every single policy that he advocates in one House one day or his hon. Friends advocate in another House another day. They change from hour to hour, from day to day, from House to House and from Question Time to Question Time.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Did my right hon. Friend have the chance to read yesterday's Daily Mail, about what £60 would buy today? Does he agree that £60 for a haircut is a bit much, even for the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: As it happens, I did not read the Daily Mail yesterday, so I was certainly not aware of the right hon. Gentleman's haircutting exploits. Indeed, it would be indelicate of me to refer to them.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Prentice: Has the Prime Minister visited Dudley, West yet? If not, does he intend to do so? Is he aware that his candidate there said on television last night that he wanted to fight the by-election exclusively on local issues? Today of all days, are there no national issues on which to engage the electors of Dudley, West?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had cared to look even at today's news he would have seen that there is another record set of export figures, that industrial production is rising yet again, that over recent months unemployment has been falling consistently, that there is a growth rate of over 4 per cent. and that there is an inflation rate of 2 per cent. He would see prospects for this country that his party in office has never managed to

    471
    produce. I suggest that that is a good prospectus for people at any by-election at any time and certainly for the one at Dudley, West.
    Mr. John Marshall: As chairman of the all-party Friends of the Northern Line group, may I welcome today's announcement of 100 new trains for the Northern line? That is good news for London and will be warmly welcomed. [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: There seems to be a voice of dissent—the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—but I think that most people who use the Northern line will be pleased to see this substantial investment and the improved rolling stock that will be available for many millions of Londoners and others.
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gunnell: Given the Prime Minister's claim to support small business, and recognising that over the past 10 years British Coal Enterprise has created or expanded 5,000 companies in coalfield areas, would the Prime Minister now guarantee the future of British Coal Enterprise?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, in the way that he posed his question, shows what an excellent record we have on small businesses, because he quoted the number of extra small companies that there are. That is true of other parts of industry and in other parts of the country, and I am sure that they will continue to grow.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is always welcome when parents exercise the right of choice in education for their children, a choice which only the Conservative party has introduced? Does he further agree that it is contemptible for most Opposition Members to seek to deny that choice from which so many of them and their children have benefited? Does he agree that this is a case of, "You're all right, Tony, pull up the ladder"?
    The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to see people exercising choice in all areas, and it is certainly right to exercise choice in favour of one's children to ensure that they get the best possible education. The point about education generally is that there is no choice where only bad schools exist. That is why we have introduced a range of measures, including regular inspection, and a range of education policies, to raise standards. I am delighted that, despite its past hostility to those policies, the Labour party is increasingly recognising that our
    472
    education policies are right and is now following them. I recommend to the Opposition that they begin to follow some of our other policies on a whole range of issues.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Prime Minister accept that last Thursday he misled the House in claiming that the disposable income of all people at every level had risen, and that the facts are that the bottom tenth of the population's real disposable income has fallen by 17 per cent. since 1979 while the incomes of the top tenth have gone up by 62 per cent? Does not that demonstrate the unfair society that we shall be left with following this Tory Government? Will he now put the record straight?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is playing with statistics and she knows it. [Interruption.] The statistics that she quotes incorporate all sorts of people who run businesses and declare no income but whose spending pattern is way above the average. That is how she produces those statistics. The people at the bottom end of the scale are those who exist completely on social security payments. The hon. Lady knows that they have risen in value and she should not try and pretend otherwise.
    Q7. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Returning to the subject of education, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend the good work that is being done in independent schools throughout the country? Will he also confirm again the Government's commitment to the assisted places scheme which has done so much for children from less well-off families? Is not it surprising that the new modern Labour party should once again attack freedom of choice in education and, indeed, make it more difficult for its leader to exercise choice for his own family?
    The Prime Minister: It is entirely apt that my hon. Friend should ask that question when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) has just been talking about people at the bottom of the income scale. The assisted places scheme is a way to help people at the bottom of the income scale and the hon. Lady opposes it, as do her right hon. and hon. Friends. Parental choice is a fundamental principle of our policy. We choose to exercise it for everyone, not just for some, and I fail to understand how members of the Labour party, which claims to pride itself on equality of opportunity, would deny the opportunities under the assisted places scheme to some of the poorest children in Britain. What it shows yet again is the gap between what they say and what they practise.

Tax Revenue
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, I should like to make a statement. It is a statement, not a Budget statement. I regard it as a corrigendum to an earlier Budget, on which the House has decided to change its mind.
Following the vote on Tuesday night, I told the House that the Government remained committed to taking all the necessary measures to put the public finances on a sound footing.
The reductions in the public sector borrowing requirement that I announced were welcomed at the time by the business community, by the financial markets and by the House. During the course of our Budget debate, very few right hon. and hon. Members questioned that judgment.
To keep those borrowing plans intact, I said on Tuesday that I would be bringing forward measures to make good the gap in the public finances from holding the rate of value added tax on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent. I can now tell the House what those measures will be. A press note filling out the details of my proposals will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.
Holding the rate of VAT at 8 per cent. will reduce revenue by about £1 billion in 1995–96 and, as a result of the quarterly profile of payments, £1.5 billion in subsequent years. Those are the amounts I have sought to recover.
As VAT on fuel will remain at 8 per cent. it would be quite wrong to increase social security expenditure by providing the full compensation package previously announced to help people with VAT at 17.5 per cent. We will adjust the amount that would have been paid had VAT on fuel been increased. By adjusting that amount, we will save about £200 million in 1995–96 and subsequent years.
We will, of course, keep in place the help already given for 8 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel and power. We will increase benefits fully in line with the relevant cost of living index, including the component reflecting the impact of last year's VAT increase. After those adjustments, pensioner couples will receive help of at least £1.05 a week from next April. This will be more than the average weekly cost to pensioners of paying 8 per cent. VAT on fuel. I am also keeping unchanged the increases in cold weather payments and spending on the home energy efficiency scheme which I announced in the Budget and in last Tuesday's debate.
That small change in the previously announced pension rates has a knock-on effect to the national insurance system, since the lower earnings limit is automatically linked to the single pension. National insurance contributions will therefore start at £58 rather than £59 a week from April 1995. The upper earnings limit will be unchanged. That will raise receipts from national insurance contributions by about £50 million next year.
So the remaining gap for 1995–96 amounts to about £800 million. My first option was to look at public spending. In my last two Budgets, I have been able to find savings of £43 billion in public spending over the four survey years. That is much larger than the increases in taxation that we found it necessary to make to restore healthy public finances after the recession. We have
474
managed to find those savings while increasing spending in real terms on key public services, such as the national health service and the police. My objective remains to reduce Government spending to below 40 per cent. of total national output. Both Budgets made that objective much more achievable.
The details of this year's extremely tight public spending settlement have already been announced by the relevant Secretaries of State. I do not consider it practicable or sensible to reopen those settlements today. At the time of my Budget, I struck a balance between spending and revenue designed to ensure that the economy remains on track for steady and sustainable growth. Nothing that has happened since has led me to change that judgment for this year's settlement.
The next area that I considered to recover the shortfall in revenue was direct taxation. Since 1979, the Government have reduced the basic rate of taxation from 33p to 25p in the pound. We also introduced the new lower rate of 20p—one fifth of all taxpayers now pay tax only at that lower rate of 20p. When seeking to raise revenue in the 1993 Budgets, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and I considered it necessary to freeze personal allowances and reduce the married couple's allowance and the mortgage interest relief allowance.
I considered then that those increases in direct taxation were a sufficient and reasonable contribution to our revenue needs. That remains my view today. I do not intend to reverse my decisions to index the personal allowances and to over-index above inflation the elderly person's allowance and the 20p band.
As my next option, I also considered raising additional revenue through business taxation— [Interruption.] It is my clear impression from the debates that I have been listening to that hon. Members need to be taken through the options for the consequences of their votes. They need to be taken through them— [Interruption.] It is all very well voting at the behest of Conservative Euro-rebels, but certain consequences do follow.
I also considered raising additional revenue from business taxation. In my Budget, I provided as much help as I could for the business community. The reason was simple—strong and thriving businesses are essential for a strong and thriving economy.
During last week's debate, I also listened to the Labour party's proposals for closing loopholes and introducing a windfall tax on utilities. I have done some work to study them. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) asked me to do so.
The proposals are not serious options for revenue raising. This Government have never been a friend to the tax avoidance industry. Conservative Chancellor after Conservative Chancellor has closed loopholes, year after year. The last two Budgets speak for themselves. I will raise nearly £3.5 billion between 1994–95 and 1997–98 by closing loopholes. The hon. Gentleman's proposals on loopholes are undesirable changes in taxation on legitimate business. I have considered his proposal on executive share options many times. The policy behind the existing tax relief for such share options is geared to encouraging companies to motivate key employees and to benefit all shareholders. Executives are liable to capital gains tax once they sell their shares. The hon. Gentleman's suggestions totally exaggerate the cost of the scheme. He claims that I could raise £200 million by

475
reforming it. The actual total cost of the relief is estimated at around £50 million to £60 million, which is all one would gain by abolishing it.
The suggestion of a windfall tax is, by definition, a one-off tax—a one-off sum of money. It could not replace permanent annual loss of a flow of revenue. In any event, it appears to be based on the suggestion of taxing profits on gains, which, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to have discovered in this morning's press, are already liable to taxation. A windfall tax would simply be another tax on a particular sector of industry. Like other taxes on business, it would inevitably have adverse effects on that business sector's investment and prices.
My third and remaining option for 1995–96 therefore has been to look to indirect taxation. As the House has rejected an increase in indirect taxation to which the House had previously agreed, it is wholly consistent with my Budget strategy, and it preserves the shape of the Budget, to fill the hole with increases in indirect taxation. I have decided to bring forward certain increases in taxation in addition to those announced in my Budget, and the increases will take effect from midnight, 31 December 1994.
I propose that the duty on tobacco products, with the exception of hand-rolling tobacco, will increase by just under 4 per cent., equivalent to a further 6p on a packet of 20 cigarettes. This further increase in tobacco duty is consistent with our policy of increasing prices to discourage smoking.
I also propose that the duties on road fuels will rise by a further 1p a litre. I have kept these increases to the minimum to limit the burden on business users and the rural motorist. Even after these increases, petrol will still be cheaper in real terms than it was a decade ago, and it will still be cheaper than in our main European competitors.
The increase will also play a part in our strategy for curbing emissions of carbon dioxide. We remain fully committed to the target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, as do the Opposition.
Finally, I propose that duties on alcohol will rise by around 4 per cent. This is equivalent to 1p on a pint of beer, 5p on a bottle of wine and 26p on a bottle of whisky.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: What about champagne?
Mr. Clarke: Eight pence on champagne.
For the reasons set out in my Budget statement, I had hoped to spare these industries any increase in duty this year, but in present circumstances, as a result of my need to raise revenue from sources other than value added tax on fuel, I have reluctantly judged it necessary to raise some additional revenue from them.
Taken together, these increases will raise £180 million in the current financial year and nearly £800 million in 1995–96. In total this is sufficient to meet the shortfall next year. I therefore expect the public sector borrowing requirement next year to be the same as I announced in my Budget statement.
Let me turn now to the following year, 1996–97. For that year I need to raise £1.5 billion. The tax measures that I have announced today will raise an additional £850 million. The impact of the higher duties that I have announced today on the retail prices index will not be as
476
great as the impact would have been from the second stage of VAT on fuel. Inflation will therefore be very slightly lower than expected, leading to further public spending savings on benefits of around £160 million in 1996–97 and in later years, and there will be savings of around £200 million from the withdrawal of help to compensate for the second stage of value added tax.
There will therefore remain a further gap of around £300 million to be filled in 1996–97. I propose to finance this gap by reducing the public expenditure control totals for those years. For the time being, I will score that reduction through a reduction in the provision that I have made for the reserve. The eventual consequence for departmental programmes—of course, there must be a consequence for departmental programmes—will be addressed in next year's spending round. Again, I expect the public sector borrowing requirement to be as I announced in my Budget statement in 1996–97 and in subsequent years.
Resolutions under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 to hold VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. and to increase other taxes with effect from 1 January 1995 will be tabled very shortly. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will then be arranging a debate before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
I said in my Budget speech that the British economy is currently facing the most favourable set of economic circumstances that it has seen for many years. Trade figures published only this morning show that exports are up 14 per cent. in the last year, and are once again at record levels. The trade deficit is the lowest that it has been for almost 10 years. The outlook for jobs and future prosperity for men and women in this country is improving day by day.
The House and the political leadership of this country have an obligation to behave responsibly and to keep this healthy recovery on track. We have an obligation to act responsibly and not be tempted by short-term populist measures which would undermine confidence in the Government's commitment to public finances. The measures that I have announced today ensure that that commitment is fulfilled.
Mr. Gordon Brown: While the whole country will be relieved that the House has forced the Government to abandon the rise in value added tax on fuel, it will now ask why they had to take 18 months and four Budgets to bring forward the alternative measures—including the indexation of tobacco taxation which we will support—which the Government could have proposed in the first place. Does not today's statement show why the House of Commons was right to inflict a defeat on the Government on Tuesday?
On the compensation for pensioners, will the Chancellor confirm in specific detail that he expects pensioners to continue to meet fuel bills that are up by £1 a week on average as a result of the VAT that remains[Interruption.]—yes, they are up by £1 a week on average—with only 50p cash compensation in their hands and only £36 a year, even after price indexing, to meet average fuel bills of £505 a year?
Will the Chancellor now explain to the country's pensioners why he is withdrawing not only the 25p a week that he promised his party on Tuesday evening but the 30p a week that he promised last year, which was announced in the social security uprating and which has

477
been written into pension books that are now being sent out? Will he confirm that it is true that the Government are now recalling pension books that have been issued?
Will the Chancellor now explain to 10,000,000 pensioners and others on low income why he is so out of touch and his priorities so unfair that he is clawing back the compensation for pensioners while he insists on going ahead with cuts in the price of bottles of champagne? Will he explain why he is punishing pensioners when it is the Conservative party that should be paying the price for its mistakes?
As for public spending cuts, will the Chancellor confirm that he plans to cut £320 million next year and £255 million the year after? Will he explain where he is planning to make those cuts and how he squares them with his promise that there would be no cuts in public investment, and with the Prime Minister's statement at the election that cutting public spending was "not economically right"?
On taxation, will the Chancellor confirm this: that, on top of the national insurance rise that people are already paying, on top of the income tax rises resulting from the mortgage tax relief being withdrawn and the cut in the married couple's allowance, and on top of the other five tax rises, the effect of the tax rises that he is announcing today is another 43p a week for the typical taxpayer? Will he confirm that that means that the typical burden faced by millions of people as a result of all the tax changes that the Conservatives have made is now £875 a year, which is in breach of election promises that there would be no tax rises at all?
On alcohol, will the Chancellor confirm his assessment of the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of his complete U-turn on the price of beer? [Interruption.]. I am referring, as Conservative Members know, to beer and to the lobby that the Chancellor should listen to about the effect on jobs in the industry as a result of his changes today.
As the Chancellor raises questions about the alternatives that the Labour party would put forward, will he now confirm in detail that, if removed—on the recommendation of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, who said that they were unfair—executive share options and the tax privileges would raise not only the money that he saves from capital gains tax but the money from the spouses of people who hold those executive shares, and that the true figure, as calculated by all the experts throughout the country, is not £45 million, but £200 million in total? [Interruption.] Conservative Members opposite do not want to listen, because they do not understand the unfairness of a Government who put up the taxation of ordinary people while refusing to deal with abuses in the tax system.
Will the Chancellor confirm that, as far as the de-merger of the national grid is concerned, which he mentioned in his statement, the Government are in a position to raise £1,000 million in capital gains tax and corporation tax, and that that has not been included in the public expenditure and taxation estimates that have been brought to the House? Will he also confirm that it is not only the Large Energy Users Council but a former Tory Member of Parliament—the secretary of that council—who said that the case for a windfall tax on the utilities is now pressing and that it should now be introduced?
478
If the Chancellor says that our measures are a one-off, let me ask him in conclusion: is not the underlying truth of his Budget measures today that, to pay for the sole remaining policy that the Conservative Government now have—tax cuts next year—they will contemplate any tax rises? They will even take money that they promised to pensioners. They will contemplate additional reductions in living standards this year. Will he tell us specifically whether he agrees with the Governor of the Bank of England, who said this morning that the price of tax cuts next year could be interest rate rises as well?
This latest Budget statement shows a Government who have been stumbling from crisis to crisis, from panic measure to panic measure—a Government who are at their core incompetent and unfair. They are no longer fit to be in charge of our nation's finances. They are out of touch. They should now be out of office.
Mr. Clarke: I believe the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to be an intelligent and thoughtful man. If I did not, I would have come to the conclusion by now that he was completely unable to master his brief on either taxation or the economy. As I think that he can master it, I believe that he is trying to deceive people by pretending that there are accountancy devices that would produce money from nowhere to enable him to answer the questions that he is incapable of answering about the consequences of his own votes and his own irresponsible behaviour.
I deal first with the measures that I announced today, some of which the hon. Gentleman implied at one point he might support. They are not my first options; they are my second, and the hon. Gentleman has discovered that there are disadvantages with some of them. I shall tell him why I limited what I had already done in particular areas.
In the case of tobacco taxation, I had already committed myself to over-indexing it in the interests of health promotion, but there is a serious smuggling problem with tobacco, which is why I exempted hand-rolling tobacco, where the position is getting particularly bad. I had already increased tax on petrol and diesel, but had gone as far as I wished to go, bearing in mind the interests of the rural motorist and of business. I had been able to freeze again the tax on alcohol, again because of the smuggling problems, which we are going to tackle most vigorously by making our customs effort more effective, as it was yesterday.
I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can have the nerve to start addressing me about the disadvantages of the measures that I have presented. Let him go and tell the Scotch Whisky Association, the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the rural motorist why my statement had to be made. According to my recollection, only a handful of my hon. Friends were involved in the move to this second option. The hon. Gentleman has discovered rather late in the day that indirect taxation in other areas has disadvantages.
Then the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to claim that I am withdrawing more compensation than is consistent with my judgment. He talks of my withdrawing compensation related to next year's VAT increase—an increase that has now been cancelled. He says that pension books have been sent out; 6,000 or so have been sent out, but obviously they will be withdrawn and replaced.

479
The hon. Gentleman wrote to me this morning; I have his letter before me. It stated that I must meet important requirements. Let me read out the most relevant:
"The Budget should ensure that there is proper compensation for pensioners and those on low incomes for the 8 per cent. VAT rise."
The hon. Gentleman then has the brass neck to get up and demand compensation for the 17.5 per cent. charge as well. He has cost us the compensation for that charge; I shall deal with the effect on pensioners.
I have already said that the compensation for the 8 per cent. increase that we have allowed for a couple will pay the average bill. The average bill is paid by prosperous pensioners with large houses and incomes; they will pay large bills. Poorer pensioners tend to pay below-average bills, and many of them will be over-compensated It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman, in his most populist mode, to say cheerily that they should receive more on top of that over-compensation.
The hon. Gentleman asked me where I would find spending cuts. I do not know how he has the brass neck to lecture Conservative Members on the need for public expenditure control, which he votes against at every opportunity—every time a proposal for such control is presented to the House. The Budget debate was littered with criticisms from Opposition Front Benchers of the public spending o control that we were exercising on matters for which they were responsible.
The fact is that we are going to find more public spending cuts. For two years, we shall be controlling public spending within our present constraints. As I have made clear, we shall recover the £300 million—on top of whatever else is required—in years two and three of a properly and professionally conducted public spending round.
The hon. Gentleman referred to various measures. He is straightforwardly wrong about share options. As for the tax on the national grid, the national grid has not yet been sold. We do not know what capital gain will be made, but whatever gain is made will he subject to capital gains tax.
The hon. Gentleman appears to imagine that I can start making guesstimates now of the bill that a particular taxpayer might pay next year, and start adjusting the Budget to take account of it. That is infantile. The hon. Gentleman is still talking about a windfall tax for industry, on top of the tax that industry is already paying—thereby tackling the gains that have been made, including the 3 per cent. downward effect on its charges.
I cannot believe that someone who graces the title of shadow Chancellor has come here and said that he has read in the newspapers that a particular taxpayer might pay a large bill next year, which might or might not affect the estimates that we have already made for corporation tax. That, apparently, is how a complete Budget should be altered to compensate for a loss of a tax.
A previous Labour Chancellor was fond of using the phrase "silly billy". I think that that is an accurate description of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that we shall have a debate on this matter before Christmas. I inform hon.
480
Members that I shall not let the debate on the statement run a long time, so I want brisk questions and answers from now on.
Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing): Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his maintenance of tough action on the deficit will be welcomed by the financial markets? Is he further aware that his analysis of the choices available and the choice of tobacco and petrol duty are the right ones? But is not the reaction of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) extraordinary?
It is true that, as a result of the vote the other night, some pensioners will lose. It seems odd, however, that the hon. Gentleman should then come here and complain about it, given the way he voted. Is it not the case that my right hon. and learned Friend's approach to pensioners, generally speaking, has been sympathetic, and that they should welcome the overall effect of the Budget?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Despite the extraordinary and excited events of the past fortnight, we have kept confidence in our policy in the financial markets. We have kept confidence in our policy in the business community. That matters to a much wider group of people. I am not a man from the City or from the business community. It matters to men and women around the country who are trying to earn their livings and to make their jobs safer in the fevered political climate that is coming out of the House of Commons.
I agree that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will neither tell us what he would do nor take responsibility for his actions when he cast votes against measures that we had already proposed.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) says, we are compensating pensioners. The campaign about VAT on pensioners was accompanied by pictures in some of the newspapers of little old ladies who would be taxed sitting in small rooms with bar fires. Those people with below-average bills were over-compensated by our proposal. The people at the very bottom end—the poorest pensioners with the smaller bills—have lost money as a result of the vote that the House cast earlier this week. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will not face up to the need to find £1,500 million of revenue to replace that which we have lost.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that he is demonstrating before the House this afternoon the politics of pique? He had in his Budget £1 billion, which he could have used, if he had chosen to do so, to prevent the VAT increase on fuel, without the need arising of having to come back to the House today. He chose not to do so. Is it not also extraordinary that he replaced one tax increase with no fewer than three, which demonstrates the enthusiasm with which the Tory party now increases taxes?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he chooses to increase the tax on whisky and gin, which we make, while protecting the makers of champagne, who are not British? Will he not recognise that he could have found all that money with no extra tax increases if he had cut waste in Government Departments on consultants, on advertising and on entertaining? He simply demonstrated

481
the politics of pique, and the pain and anguish could have been avoided if he had only listened to the people in the first place.
Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have a strong and recovering economy, and the Liberal party and Labour party sound like the sort of politicians who ruined South American countries' recoveries when their economies got out of hand. I have the hon. Gentleman's letter about his policies. He is into share options as well. He does not like the duties that I am raising, but one of his suggestions is:
"extend employers' national insurance contributions to benefits in kind."
Does he realise the consequence for small employers of having to account, in calculating national insurance stamps, for all the benefits in kind as if they were an income tax? That is an extraordinary proposal for him to make, which would be costly to business. He has no alternatives.
Again, I can scarcely believe my ears when the hon. Gentleman talks to me about cutting waste in Government Departments. What I have announced in this year's public spending plans means level central Government running costs in cash terms over the next four years. I do not believe that the Liberal party could achieve that in a thousand years. Nor does it ever speak about any way in which it could do it. Despite the totally irresponsible behaviour of both Opposition parties, we have a package of measures and a Budget to keep the recovery on the rails and to help people out there in the real world, earning their livings and making this country more prosperous.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is one of the laws of human affairs that, if one proceeds with one's eyes firmly fixed on the ground, looking for windfalls, one increases the danger of hanging oneself up on a loophole?
Mr. Clarke: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that, between now and next year, some homework is done by the Labour party. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the serious challenge and various responsibilities that we have faced. Next year, perhaps someone from the Opposition will explain precisely their alternative, or at least give us another source of innocent merriment to match that provided by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Red Book reveals serious errors of £10.5 billion each year in assessing the PSBR? Why is he seeking a spurious accuracy? He talks about £800 million when he makes errors of £2.5 billion every year. Could he not have waited? Why this frantic rush to try to achieve a spurious accuracy?
Mr. Clarke: I am not claiming a spurious accuracy. The PSBR estimates in the Red Book are properly worked out. I query them and go through them. We produce the best judgment we can of the profile for the PSBR. A wide margin for error exists on either side, because, as everyone has discovered, economic forecasting is a rather difficult process. The margin of error is around a
482
calculated mean. If one raises that by £1.5 billion, the margin of error at the top and bottom goes up by £1.5 billion.
The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that, if we lose £1.5 billion, as we did in the rather extraordinary circumstances of Tuesday, we should ignore it. He is a former Treasury Minister and he knows perfectly well that he would never have advocated such an irresponsible step—or perhaps he might have done, given the Chancellor for whom he worked.
Mr. John Townend: May I say how pleased I am that the Chancellor has maintained his Budget stance, so that we will have a Budget surplus within the next three to four years? He will not be surprised, however, if I am slightly saddened that all the burden of filling the gap has fallen on the taxpayer, while no further cuts have been made in expenditure. I am rather mystified that we should attack the brewing and distilling industries, especially when we have a problem with smuggling, whereas expenditure on overseas aid and the heritage budget is sacrosanct.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is always consistent and extremely clear in the strategy that he urges. I know that he welcomes the fact that more than £40 billion has been saved from public spending plans so far. As I have made clear to him, a further £700 million—two sums of £350 million—will come out of those public spending plans in the next two years, quite apart from any judgment we may make about the practicability of making further cuts in those plans.
I assure my hon. Friend that I looked closely at the prospects for further cuts in year one, on top of the £28 billion in total Government spending already announced in my recent Budget. At this stage of the year, all the decisions have been announced, the plans have been made and budgets are being set by local authorities and health authorities, so one cannot resume a full public spending round. The only way to approach that would be by making a discretionary cut across all programmes to try to raise the necessary money. That would pose difficulties for defence, the health service, the police and many other services.
We are responsible for competent government, and the decisions we have taken, which have dramatically reduced public spending, have been made as a result of properly conducted public spending rounds. That is how we will get the £700 million required in years two and three, but at this stage it is obviously necessary to raise revenue. As I have already said to my hon. Friend, I regret the necessity to raise the revenue. It is my second choice. It would not have been my first choice, or that of my hon. Friend, but given that he has supported the Budget judgment so strongly, I hope that he will accept that it is necessary to raise that revenue to keep the recovery on course.
Mr. Giles Radice: As the Government have trouble in getting their financial measures through the House, would not it be sensible to consult the Opposition as well as Tory rebels before bringing forward such measures?
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman counts my attendance at various stages of the Budget debate, I suppose that I have spent five days consulting the Opposition, and answer came there none. So far, we have

483
had no difficulty in getting this year's Budget measures through, and we have had no difficulty in getting previous years' Budget measures through. But the Opposition—because they did not have very much to say about this year's Budget—irresponsibly decided to readdress the question of VAT on fuel. [Interruption.] There was a difficulty, and I have accepted the wish of the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice)—with his views on Europe—will accept that it was a very curious coalition indeed which defeated the Government on Tuesday, and it certainly was not one with any economic expertise.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's recognition that there is a problem with the smuggling of hand-rolling tobacco? May I suggest to him that the higher the profit that is to be made from alcohol and smuggled tobacco, the greater the availability, and hence the greater long-term effect on health. Other than prevention—which does not work—how does my right hon. and learned Friend propose to deal with the problem of smuggling?
Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that we recovered an extremely successful haul yesterday, and serious charges will flow from that. We are being increasingly succesful in tackling organised smuggling, although I accept that a lot of revenue and trade has been lost through the differentials which legally apply in legitimate cross-border trading. Those must be addressed by trying to get an approximation of duty levels as soon as we reasonably can in the single market.
Our review of Customs and Excise is concentrating on further improving the effectiveness of our efforts to counter smuggling. There have been some criticisms, from the Opposition particularly, about some of the manpower consequences of the changes, because random checks and so on are not the most effective ways of dealing with the problem. One requires modern technology, efficient organisation and improving the flow of intelligence, and I hope that yesterday's news underlines to my hon. Friend that we are determined to tackle what I wholly agree with her is an extremely serious problem for legitimate traders and manufacturers.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, surely he should explain why the cuts are taking place in Customs and Excise when the organisation needs to be strengthened. How can the Chancellor justify what he has just said to the House?
Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming that the only way to intensify effort is by increasing manpower. [Interruption.] I understand the campaign from the trade unions which are involved, and Opposition Members are perfectly entitled to represent that. [Interruption.] That is the case—Opposition Members are bound to argue that.
If one is looking to improve the effectiveness of an organisation, one must target its efforts to those areas where it is obvious that one is having the most effective results. One must also make sure that those aspects of activity which produce the best results have the proper resources and are taken further. Customs and Excise has
484
an enormous job to tackle today, and I congratulate it on the steady stepping up of its efforts, which are beginning to produce spectacular results.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree and accept that there will be widespread admiration for a very astute, exemplary and sound package of measures which he has announced this afternoon? Will not the whole country draw the obvious conclusion from the fact that the shadow Chancellor got his sums shambolically and embarrassingly wrong?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who does have considerable expertise in these matters. I am glad that he understands the options which I had before me, and I am also glad that he accepts that the shape for which I have opted and the measures which I have proposed are the right ones to preserve the strategy of the Budget and to keep on course the present extremely healthy recovery, which must continue if it is to deliver benefits to men and women across the country.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: If the handful of Conservative Members to whom the Chancellor referred a moment ago as Euro-rebels vote for the package, will the Whip be restored to them?
Mr. Clarke: Matters of the restoration of the Whip are not for me, but they are usually governed by the practice of voting for a Conservative Government. The same practice has been followed by the Labour party when it has had similar difficulties from time to time. I am quite sure that we will continue to have such difficulties frequently in the future.
Mr. Kin Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many Conservative Members regret his having to appear before us today with those measures? Furthermore, will he instruct all those in business who transport goods, publicans, those who run off-licences and everyone else engaged in the legitimate sale of alcohol now to take all their comments to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and ask him why we have had to make their business much harder?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Like me, he realises that this is a difficult package. He and I did not want to see the price of petrol, diesel, tobacco and alcohol go up in that way. I share his reaction. The next time Opposition Members attend gatherings allegedly to further the interests of those industries and the people who work in them, people should tackle them about how far their actions match the lobbying letters they write to me and the representations they make in the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that there was another option? In the past 15 years of this Tory Government, the richest 10 per cent. have had £50 billion-worth of accumulated tax cuts. Instead of putting extra tax on fags, beer and petrol, the Chancellor could have chosen to take a couple of billion pounds back from the super-rich. Instead, he decided to hammer the working class. I shall give him this tip: when Labour gets into power shortly, I shall encourage those on our Front Bench to do exactly that.
Mr. Clarke: I well remember the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) delivering a shadow Budget on the Floor of the House many years ago. I sat throughout

485
it—he took more than an hour but put nobody to sleep. Indeed, it was an extremely well put together shadow Budget, and very much better than anything that I have ever heard today's occupants of the Opposition Front Bench outline.
At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent. He knows what the Labour party is for, and has always advocated taxing the rich as he describes. We have discovered and experienced that, if we tax those rich, we drive them abroad and damage British industry. We have also found that the proportion of total taxation now paid by higher earners has increased as a result of getting rid of the high levels of penal taxation that satisfy the politics of the hon. Gentleman and for which he still yearns.
Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark): May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that one of the less well publicised aspects of his first Budget statement was the fact that the breakdown between pension increase and VAT was to be made clearer in the pension book? Despite Tuesday's vote, will he confirm that, in future, people will know from their pension book how much of the component of what they get is represented by VAT compensation?
Mr. Clarke: Because of the changes that are being made, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is considering that matter. It is clearly a matter for him and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's representations are passed on to him this afternoon.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Chancellor's flippant remarks about old-age pensioners and fires come ill from somebody who will never have to go cold in the winter. Given the money that he is looking for, which he has admitted is only 10 per cent. of the standard error on the public sector borrowing requirement, is it not an issue only because of his extraordinary behaviour over the past few days? Has he not replaced one anti-Scottish tax of VAT on fuel with two anti-Scottish taxes on petrol and whisky? Why should the people of Scotland pay for the Chancellor's incompetence and the Prime Minister's petulance?
Mr. Clarke: I, personally, gain from the vote cast on Tuesday, as my heating bills will be reduced now that the higher rate of VAT will not be put on fuel. A pensioner in a small property with low bills loses as a result of Tuesday's vote, because the compensation would have exceeded the value added tax. There is no point in my arguing the case again. It was not accepted, and I accept the judgment of the House.
The hon. Gentleman must face up to the consequences of his actions. I regret the effect on rural motorists in Scotland, but it might have been less if the hon. Gentleman could do his arithmetic and work out the consequences of the votes he casts when he comes here.
Mr. Toby Jessel: I warmly welcome the increase in tax on tobacco, which I urged on Monday in my speech in the Budget debate, on the grounds that it would tend to reduce the number of deaths from lung cancer and other appalling diseases, and deter with more force the number of young people starting to smoke. Has
486
my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the deafening silence from Opposition Members who claim to care about health? How does he expect them to vote on that?
Mr. Clarke: It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. I know my hon. Friend's fierce commitment to the cause of reducing smoking, and increasing taxation on it to help that cause. He and those right hon. and hon. Members who agree with him will, I am sure, be pleased that their campaign has been reinforced by my being obliged to go back and take more money from tobacco in addition to the significant increase, in excess of inflation, that I had already imposed.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a real problem that an increasingly uneven playing field is now developing between Britain and the rest of the European Union in taxation of tobacco and spirits? Is it not clear that what the Chancellor has done today, in spite of the problems, is to invite more job losses in the United Kingdom in both those industries? Is it not about time that British Chancellors went to Community economic summits and demanded harmonisation of the duties throughout the Community, so that at least there was a level playing field for production?
Mr. Clarke: If I went along and demanded harmonisation of taxation, quite a lot of hon. Members on both sides of the House might suddenly decide that they did not want that.
Mr. Peter Shore indicated assent.
Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), sitting behind the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is nodding strongly about that.
I used the phrase "approximation of duty". I believe that the policy on taxation is a policy for the nation states, so I actually agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, but obviously it is for those nation states to consider the consequences across their borders. I think that it is right for the member states of the European Union to seek to achieve greater approximation of duty, so that smuggling and artificial movement of trade is reduced, and that we will endeavour to do. There will be talks on that next year.
The difficulty is that Britain—like Ireland and Denmark—has always traditionally imposed high levels of tax on alcohol, compared with continental countries, which have a broader base for VAT. We have considerable zero rating of VAT, and we therefore do not obtain as much VAT as other countries do: and traditionally, for I think about 200 years, we have always raised far more revenue from alcohol and tobacco. We are entitled to make our choice; it is our national pattern of taxation and it always will be, but we do have to look to our trading interests, as do the other countries, and a closer approximation of duties is very much overdue.
Mr. Phil Gallie: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on sticking to the objectives of a Budget that, overall, was a very good Budget indeed? Can he rest assured that I will meet my responsibilities to the Scotch Whisky Association, just as I expect every Opposition Member to do, especially the Scottish

487
Members? Can I say to my right hon. and learned Friend, having exposed the windfall tax as a windbag tax, that he can be assured of my support in the Lobby?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on the consistency and fairness of his position, and the way in which he puts it today. When disparaging the Labour party, I made disparaging remarks about one or two of those hon. Members who voted against my opinion on Tuesday. Last year, my hon. Friend came to visit me and told me what he thought about VAT on fuel. This year, he came and told me what he thought about VAT on fuel. He told me that he would not vote for it. His reasons were connected with VAT on fuel, and his constituents in Ayr. My disparaging remarks were made about one or two of his hon. Friends who told me one thing and then did another, and found themselves in alliance with the opportunists sitting on the other side of the House.
Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to the Chancellor. Will he confirm that, as his demeanour today suggests, he is disappointed that he was unable to raise the cost of fuel for pensioners, the poor and the disabled?
Mr. Clarke: The compensation package that we produced for the poor, disabled and pensioners meant that that section of the population was the least affected by the tax changes that we were making. The House is full of men and women who personally benefit from the vote on Tuesday to a much greater extent than the average pensioner.
Mr. David Shaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most people in this country will regard the proposals as sensible, fair and just? Does he also accept that now, only two political parties in this country have a commitment to a carbon energy tax—the Labour party and the Liberal party? Can he confirm that there is indeed a crisis in this country—in the ranks of the Opposition, who cannot produce a properly costed Budget?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is right to point out the commitments to a carbon energy tax. The Liberals are certainly committed to that tax—the Labour party sometimes is and sometimes is not. As my hon. Friend says, it would have a dramatic effect on fuel bills in this country. It would have a crippling effect on the cost of business and industry, which would damage our competitive position at a time when we are trading so well and coming out of the recession.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Before the Chancellor leaves the House, will he apologise to the poor, the elderly and the invalids whose pockets the House prevented him from picking?
Mr. Clarke: I have explained repeatedly that the hon. Gentleman did not vote to the particular advantage of the poor, the elderly and invalids on Tuesday. He voted because his right hon. and hon. Friends could not think of any other point to make about this year's Budget and returned, in a misleading way, to previous debates.
Mr. George Kynoch: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, despite what has been said by the nationalists, my constituents will welcome his retention of the significant upgrading of cold
488
weather payments and the home energy efficiency scheme, as well as the significant increase in the age allowance, which is well in excess of inflation? Most of all, they will be pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has not been deflected from his overall policy of going for strong, sustainable growth—something that the Opposition parties cannot understand and are trying to destroy.
Mr. Clarke: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. This Government invented the system of cold weather payments and keep improving it—we have raised the payments to £8.50, which will benefit many Scottish people if we have a freezing spell this winter. In the course of the debate, I kept dramatically raising the amount of money available for the home energy efficiency scheme. That scheme improves the comfort of its beneficiaries—it dramatically reduces their fuel bills. It is an effective way of improving energy efficiency.
We have directed ourselves to the causes that my hon. Friend has identified, together with the main causes that must dominate this country at present—reducing unemployment, increasing prosperity and ensuring that we have a strong and thriving economy in this country.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Chancellor accept that he and his hon. Friends have this afternoon been behaving like demented Corgis—voting to give away Korean cook books for Christmas? Does he also agree that, when it comes to cooking the books, his statement about the raiding of the contingency reserve to close 25 per cent. of the finance gap that has arisen is most unorthodox in terms of fiscal propriety? Does he not agree that that reserve is not meant to cover shortfalls in revenue? Will he explain how 25 per cent. of that gap remains unallocated and unexplained as of this afternoon?
Mr. Clarke: As I have said, that gap will be dealt with by cuts in public expenditure provision over and above those that we would otherwise have made in the relevant years—the second and third years of the survey. I mentioned in passing how we would account for that provision to underline our commitment to it. At this stage, it will be based on the lines of the provision that I have made for the future contingency reserve. It will come out of programmes and public spending control when we have carried out a proper public expenditure survey for years two and three of the present survey years.
Several hon Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall move on now to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.28 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week:
MONDAY 12 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Health Authorities Bill.
Motion on the First Special Report from the Committee of Privileges.
TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER—Until 10 o'clock, motions relating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of 8 December.
WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, motions on rating and valuation orders and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion.
THURSDAY 15 DECEMBER—Estimates Day (1st allotted day).There will be a debate on administration and miscellaneous services in so far as they relate to the Department of Social Security's responsibilities for the Child Support Agency and the operation of the Child Support Act, followed by a debate on the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner and Health Service Commissioners, in so far as it relates to the powers, work and jurisdiction of the ombudsman.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the civil and defence votes on account and the outstanding winter supplementary estimates. There will then be proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER—Debate on the national lottery on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Motions on parliamentary procedures.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Tuesday 13 December: European Standing Committee A, European Community Document No. 4195/94 relating to food hygiene for milk and milk products.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document No. 9101/94 relating to generalised schemes of preferences.
Wednesday 14 December: European Standing Committee A, Unnumbered memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 28 November 1994 relating to reform of the agri-monetary system.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document No. 8077/94 relating to action against drugs; and EC document No. 8929/94 relating to prevention of drug dependence.
[Tuesday 13 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 4195/94 relating to food hygiene for milk and milk products. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 48-vii (1993–94) and HC 70-i (1994–95).
490
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9101/94 relating to Tariff Preference for Developing Countries. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 70-i (1994–95).
Wednesday 14 December:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document; unnumbered, Agri-Monetary Reform. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 70-i (1994–95).
European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: 8077/94 and 8929/94 Action to Combat Drugs. Relevant European Document HC 48-xxvi (1993–94).
Floor of the House—Motions on rating and valuation orders and regulations. The documents are as follows:
The Non-domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations; The British Gas Plc (Rateable Values) Order; The Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order; The Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order; The Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order; The Railways (Rateable Values) Order; and The British Waterways Board and Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) Revocation Order.]
And now, the bit they all want—or perhaps I should say, the bit the House wants. The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Wednesday 21 December until Tuesday 10 January.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and I welcome the fact that we shall at last have a chance to debate the Jopling proposals. I hope that we shall be able to make good progress, with the Leader of the House giving us as much notice as possible of future business on all occasions, even if that business is provisional.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, although we all welcome knowing the dates of the recess, it is his party, not ours, which is anxious for it to start as soon as possible.
With regard to the Committee of Selection, which met yesterday, the Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee was unsure as to how it should act now that we have a minority Government. Hence the Committee recommended that the whole issue of appointments to Standing Committees be referred to the Floor of the House. I wonder when the right hon. Gentleman intends to ensure that there is a debate on that matter on the Floor of the House, because we are obviously anxious to have it resolved; we believe that we have a strong case for parity on those Committees, given that the Government have lost their majority.
The Leader of the House will be aware that in July 1993 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published a consultative document proposing the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, and that the responses to that document were overwhelmingly hostile. As the former Agriculture Minister promised a response by Easter this year, and as it has still not been forthcoming, when may we expect the Minister of Agriculture,

491
Fisheries and Food to remove that threat to agricultural workers and their families? It should have been removed by Easter; will it be removed by Christmas?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I am not at the moment able to give the hon. Lady a precise date and time for resolving the uncertainty to which she has just referred, but I shall bring the fact that she has just raised it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The hon. Lady asked about the Committee of Selection. We are all aware of what emerged from the Committee yesterday, and she will understand that the timing of any debate is a matter for discussion through the usual channels. I do not think that I can hold out expectation of it being before Christmas, but I am sure that discussions can resolve a satisfactory time. The hon. Lady's first question was rather routine, and I shall take it principally as welcoming the procedure motions arising from our negotiations on the Jopling report. Of course, I continue to take notice of the desire of the hon. Lady and others for further notification about business.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a broad welcome in the House for the fact that at last the recommendations of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House will be brought to fruition? Will he be kind enough to lay before us the changes in Standing Orders, whatever they are, as soon as possible, so that we may have a good chance to read them? Does he intend the new arrangements to operate when we return from the Christmas recess?
Mr. Newton: Essentially, the answer to the latter part of my right hon. Friend's question is yes. In answer to his earlier question, I can tell him that I shall do everything that I can to make sure that the detailed resolutions are laid at the earliest practicable moment, so that there will be a proper opportunity to consider them. In view of the contacts that I have maintained with my right hon. Friend over what is now more than months, it goes almost without saying that I greatly value his appreciation of the fact that we are now able to make a move on this front.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House accept that if the Jopling proposals were extant and we had their benefit, he would today have been able to give us the last two days' business before Christmas rather than keeping us all on tenterhooks? There is a clear feeling in all parts of the House that the more notice we get on important debates, the better. If there are substantial and fundamental changes to the rules of engagement in Bosnia, will the Government undertake to make not just a statement on such important and serious matters, but provision for a short debate if that is necessary? While I am on this matter, what about Hong Kong?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps for the moment I may confine my remarks to Bosnia. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement yesterday. That responded to representations that I had received from various quarters about the desirability of such a statement. I think that I can claim some credibility because of my repeated assurances to the
492
House about making arrangements for appropriate statements or debates as and when the need for them is clear.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is the ninth time that I have risen to press him on Jopling? I am delighted to congratulate him on being able to give a favourable response this time. Can he confirm that the motions will be amendable? As this matter of procedure is fairly wide, will he try to limit the amendments so that they relate only to the Jopling report and not to other aspects of procedure because, of course, to do so would be to go much wider?
Mr. Newton: Although those are ultimately matters for the Chair, I expect the motions to be amendable. However, I shall not presume on the judgment of the Chair about the scope and scale of amendments. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend will understand that. I appreciate his warm welcome for what I said, and say to him in return that it feels like many more than nine times.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Department of Transport to send a Minister to the Dispatch Box to explain what has happened today to our rolling stock industry? That industry is virtually bankrupt and is now faced with the award of a major contract for London Underground trains to a firm that will give most of the work to France and Spain and very little work, which will be of an assembly type, to the west midlands. That is not only a disgrace but typical of what happens. No one can imagine the French Government awarding such a major contract for their transport system to any foreign supplier.
Mr. Newton: I am, of course, aware—and had I not been, I would have been made aware by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who has pressed so hard for new rolling stock for the Northern line—of the fact that a decision has been announced today. I have not had an opportunity to study the detail of that decision but, inevitably—and quite properly within the rules—London Underground will have had to have regard to the value for money of the various tenders that came in. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that, while I understand entirely why she raised the issue and why the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others may wish to raise it, I cannot add to that.
I acknowledge that all hon. Members representing Derbyshire and the surrounding area have quite rightly worked very hard for the award of the contract, which they wished to go to Derby, including my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight).
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the appalling mismanagement of the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Essex council, which is denying care in the community to frail and elderly people in that county? Does he recognise that the debate is urgent, given the shocking discovery that at the same time as the council is denying care to my constituents, it is sitting on more than £24 million, and that figure is growing with every profit? Surely the House should have an opportunity to debate the callous behaviour of councillors in Essex.
Mr. Newton: Again, as a Member of Parliament for Essex, as my hon. Friend knows, I well understand why

493
he raises that point. In noting his remarks, I would make the point that, for all local authorities, the support funding for social services, including community care responsibilities, has gone up by 15 per cent. this year on last and, over four years, from just over £3.5 billion to nearly £6.5 billion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Thursday's business, would the Leader of the House consider asking the Prime Minister whether he would answer the detailed Question 5 on Lockerbie at the end of questions, so that he can give the proper answer that he would wish, in view of the sensitivities of the relatives and to be fair to the noble Lord Parkinson, who, in good faith gave undertakings to the relatives that there would be a public inquiry, and to be fair to the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who, as Secretary of State for Transport, made a statement to journalists at the Garrick club for which he was later dismissed—possibly unfairly because of its complexity? Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider answering that at the end of questions, for the sake of coherence?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on health next week, so that hon. Members can examine properly the argument advanced on both sides of the House that increasing taxation on cigarettes improves health in Britain when that is not proven, bearing in mind the fact that cigarettes imported from Germany and France replace British cigarettes that would otherwise be smoked, not to mention smuggling, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor mentioned this afternoon? The fact that 204 jobs at Gallaher Tobacco in my constituency have been lost this week to cigarette makers from overseas should properly be discussed in the House.
Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point. Perhaps he will have the good fortune to catch the Chair's eye next Tuesday if he wishes to pursue it. I should acknowledge, however, that it is clear that price has played a part in reducing cigarette consumption and that the reduction in cigarette consumption has had beneficial health effects.
Mr. John Denham: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for a debate or statement on the thousands of women who are living on reduced incomes because they are denied invalidity benefit while the Government challenge a European Court decision that they should be entitled to it? It is outrageous and we are now told that it will be another 18 months at least before the matter is resolved. Millions of pounds are being denied to women living in reduced circumstances. If the Leader of the House has a word with the Secretary of State for Social Security, will he tell him that it really is not good enough consistently to refuse to estimate how much money is
494
being withheld from those women? It is not good enough that the Secretary of State refuses to answer parliamentary questions on the matter.
Mr. Newton: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, as I expect he anticipates, that I shall bring that question to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In view of what my right hon. Friend has just said to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is he aware of the concern of hon. Members representing Derbyshire about today's announcement from the Department of Transport? Would it be possible to have a statement next week? Will the Secretary of State, perhaps at that stage, draw to the House's attention early-day motion 71 in which a number of Labour Members demanded that the contract went to GEC?
[That this House welcomes the bid from GEC Alsthom for a 20-year service provision package, including new rolling stock, for London Underground's Northern Line and the job security which the award of this tender would bring to its factories in Birmingham and the North West; calls upon London Underground to make its tender decision strictly on the quality of the product and value for money; and commends the bid to London Underground on these criteria.]
Mr. Newton: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's last point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will answer questions on Monday 19 December. Lastly, I acknowledge the efforts that my hon. Friend has made as a Member representing Derbyshire, in the interests of his constituents and those nearby.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible to have a debate in the very near future—next week, if possible—on the duties and responsibilities of Members of Parliament, bearing in mind how the standing of the House has improved considerably since the vote on Tuesday, because people have realised that there are Members of Parliament who vote according to what they believe to be in the national interest and according to their conscience, and who are not willing to be stamped on and bullied by Whips? If the Leader of the House has seen some of the letters that appeared in the national press yesterday and today, he will know full well that I am absolutely correct in saying that the authority of the House has gone up and that that is far more important than any proposed change over Jopling.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may possibly care to reflect on those remarks when he starts to get the complaints that we heard so vociferously from the Opposition in relation to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said this afternoon.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Notwithstanding the welcome collapse of the iron curtain, will the Leader of the House admit that it is a matter of grave concern if ever it is discovered that a British subject has been in the pay of a foreign security service? Will he consider, therefore, having an urgent debate on national security and perhaps the remit of the Nolan committee, given that Mr. Richard Gott, who still writes for The Guardian, has been accused this week by The Spectator of having been in the pay of the KGB for a number of

495
years, despite which treason, he and his paper have continued to attack the supposed corruption of the British establishment?
Mr. Newton: While I have seen the front cover of The Spectator, I have not had the opportunity to read the story to which my hon. Friend refers. In view of what he said, he will understand that my proper course this afternoon is simply to take note of what he says.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Leader of the House allocate some time to discuss the escalation of violent crime and the use of firearms in Scotland? One of the reasons why I ask this question is that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a very misleading reply yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), by telling him that such incidents represented only two incidents per 1,000 crimes, when in the past decade there were about 17,000 crimes—5,000 in the past three years—with 4,000 people injured and 60 people killed. It is a serious problem for the people of Scotland. Nearly all those incidents happen in deprived areas in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to engage in a statistical dispute of the type that the hon. Gentleman describes without notice. I will, of course, bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I know no one more determined to seek to tackle the problems of crime in Scotland, on which he has a Bill in this very Session of Parliament, than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on British exports, during which we can congratulate British industry on its exceptional performance of late? Perhaps we could also consider the effect of the Government's announcement on reducing the rates of export credit guarantees, which has put Britain's exporters in a far better position than their competitors.
Mr. Newton: Much as I would like to arrange such a debate because I acknowledge what my hon. Friend said, I cannot readily envisage finding the time before the Christmas recess. I might be more encouraged even to seek to do so if I thought that there was the slightest chance that those well-deserved tributes to British industry would be paid by the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Frank Cook: I believe that the order relating to the local government reorganisation of Cleveland was tabled today and will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. Does the Lord President of the Council recall his statement of 16 June that it would clearly be inappropriate to proceed while the judicial review was taking place? I invite him to repeat that assurance to the House today.
Mr. Newton: Clearly, we would not have laid the order as the hon. Gentleman described had we felt that it was any longer inappropriate to do so. He will know that there has been an extensive amount of legal action on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would say that there must come a stage when it is appropriate to proceed.
Mr. Quentin Davies: May we have an urgent debate on the constitution, as the Opposition are making some extraordinary proposals
496
these days? The Labour party is attacking the monarchy and suggests that if it were ever elected, it would spend the first year of government getting through legislation to introduce unequal representation. Those of us representing English constituencies would not be able to discuss matters relating to health, education, welfare and so forth in England and Wales, yet Members representing Scotland and Wales would be able discuss those matters here, in the same Parliament, as they relate to English residents. Unequal representation is a sinister idea and it is contrary to democracy wherever it is practised. May we have a debate to investigate that matter? Perhaps the hon. Member who represents West Lothian—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who has just left the Chamber, might like to take part.
Mr. Newton: That would certainly be the case and, indeed, that question—previously called the West Lothian question—has never even remotely been answered, to the embarrassment of many Opposition Members. In future, we shall have to describe it as the Linlithgow question, but it remains the same.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Commons was absent for 13 weeks in the summer and for two weeks when Parliament prorogued. We shall be away for another three weeks over Christmas and the new year. Furthermore, this afternoon's business has collapsed and we have five and a half hours to discuss a bridge in Wales. Important though that might be, we could have discussed other matters later. Why then has a junior Transport Minister offered me a private Member's Bill to introduce, instead of a measure of my choice, because there is not enough time for it to be debated in Parliament? Should not we alter our arrangements so that we can get through our business correctly and properly?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that any hon. Friend who approached the hon. Gentleman was merely trying to be helpful. On the first part of his question, we have had such exchanges many times before and, judging by representations made to me about sitting hours and all the rest, the hon. Gentleman's views are simply unrepresentative—for example, he had only to listen to the welcome given this afternoon to the proposed debate on what are known as the Jopling proposals.
Dr. Robert Spink: Further to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), may I press my right hon. Friend for a debate on the monumental mismanagement by Liberal and Labour-controlled Essex county council, which has lost £8.5 million from its community and child care budgets, with reserves rising from £25 million today to a predicted £28 million at the end of the financial year? Surely the council should be using those reserves to protect the vulnerable elderly people and children in my constituency and in Brentwood and Ongar.
Mr. Newton: I would certainly tell my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that the matter that they pointed out raises some very real questions. While I cannot promise a debate before the Christmas recess, I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Leader of the House will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) mentioned the United

497
States-United Kingdom nuclear agreement last week, which the Government extended for another 10 years. Does not he think that it is deplorable and damaging to democracy for such an agreement to be extended without the House having the opportunity to debate it and without hon. Members who oppose that nuclear strategy having the opportunity to express their opposition?
Mr. Newton: No, I do not, for reasons that I sought to explain in the letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) following the exchange last week. I shall arrange for a copy of that letter to be sent to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I follow that question? I understood when I raised the matter in the House last week that the Government were extending the treaty under the Ponsonby rule whereby, for the matter to be debated by the whole House, an hon. Member is required to object in this Chamber. I asked the Leader of the House to arrange such a debate and I have not yet received a reply. Is he saying that the Ponsonby rule is being ignored and that the House is being denied the opportunity of having the debate that the rule should require?
Mr. Newton: I am certainly not saying that. I need hardly say that I signed a reply to the hon. Gentleman earlier today and I must apologise if it has not yet reached him. I shall ensure that it does as soon as possible.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In line with the other representations that the right hon. Gentleman has heard this afternoon, may I ask for a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport about the contract that has been awarded to GEC, which will result in 600 immediate job losses in Derby and up to 3,000 losses eventually, if no other contracts are awarded in lieu of that loss? Will the Leader of the House convey to the Secretary of State that it is not good enough saying that France has got those jobs because of the minimum wage and the social chapter? The loss is a direct result of the Government's decision to allocate that contract to GEC, which will export jobs to France. It is not good enough and the decision should be reversed.
Mr. Newton: I have already made several comments on that matter in response to entirely understandable points from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I cannot add to them, but I shall add the hon. Gentleman's representations to those that I shall communicate to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: May we have an early opportunity to debate the figures issued through a planted written question on the single regeneration budget the other day? The Leader of the House may know that the single regeneration budget represented a massive cut in its constituent parts—the different budgets that went into it originally. He may also know that the figures released in the Budget were a cut on those announced earlier this year. At least, if we had such a debate, we would have the opportunity to discuss
498
the astonishing press release put out by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which claimed £800 million of new money for regeneration.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should declare an interest, in that one of the successful schemes was the regeneration scheme in Braintree, East. I was very pleased about that. On the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, his remarks may simply reflect a misunderstanding, given that one of the most notable features of the single regeneration budget is the amount of money brought in, alongside what is strictly SRB money, from other parts of the public sector and not least from the private sector. What the economists would call the gearing is immensely high and the investment is much greater than the outlay in the SRB itself.
Mr. Greg Pope: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 211 on today's Order Paper, which was tabled in my name?
[That this House notes with concern the proposed loss of over 200 jobs at GEC Engineering (Accrington) as a result of the continuing recession in the aircraft industry; recognises that these redundancies are a disaster for the workforce and will cause real damage to the skills base of the East Lancashire economy; further notes that GEC is a cash rich company which recorded pre-tax profits in the last financial year of £866 million, and which can afford to bid for VSEL but apparently cannot afford to stand by its loyal workforce in Accrington; believes that GEC Engineering (Accrington) should be given further time to prove its economic viability; and therefore calls on the GEC board to defer these proposed redundancies pending talks with the trade unions, local authorities, honourable Members and other interested bodies.]
The job losses are not merely a tragedy for my constituents, but a disgrace from a company such as GEC, which made profits of nearly £900 million last year. Given that the job losses are in a crucial defence-related industry, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the matter before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I had better not be unkind enough to observe some tension between the demand to prevent job losses at one part of GEC and the attacks on the award of a contract to another part of GEC. But I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's understandable concern.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Does the Leader of the House agree that the prevarication and delay that have beset the channel tunnel rail link ever since the scheme's inception mean that the House really should get down to considering that matter as soon as possible? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon that might be?
Mr. Newton: I hope that it will be quite soon. I do not anticipate a debate before the Christmas recess, but I shall be very much looking to arrange one shortly afterwards.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I press the Leader of the House to have an early debate on insider share dealing? Does he appreciate that many people believe, as I do, that his noble Friend Lord Archer is guilty as sin of insider share dealing and made £80,000 in the space of a few weeks in January last year? Is he further aware that the Chancellor told me last week that the Government were keeping the law on insider dealing under review? He

499
will have seen from today's Financial Times that the stock exchange is bringing forward new rules on insider trading. In view of those developments, surely there is a case for an early debate on the matter.
Mr. Newton: I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I am getting fed up with Opposition Members using the Floor of the House to make remarks about individuals which they would not dare to make outside because it would land them in court, and I shall certainly not provide time for a debate that would enable more of the same thing to occur.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May we have a statement tomorrow on Gibraltar? Will the Leader of the House reflect that Parliament—the Government and other parties as well—has failed to address itself to the interests of British subjects, citizens of the European Union, who are being messed around, to say the least, by the Spanish authorities? It is unacceptable for the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to pretend that they are macho in diplomatic affairs and not to address themselves to the interests of the people of Gibraltar. The House is failing them. It is time that we had a statement tomorrow on behalf of their interests, to show that Her Majesty's Government are being robust in their approaches to the Spanish Government. Secondly, we should have a debate in the House about the natural, legitimate aspirations of the people of Gibraltar for constitutional development. We are failing them.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise a statement, but the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here to answer questions next Wednesday.

Consolidated Fund
Madam Speaker: I have an announcement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment that will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Thursday 15 December.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Tuesday 13 December. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Usually, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list.
As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turns.

Points of Order
5.2 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I remained for business questions this afternoon in order to listen to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), which he also raised last week. I understand that he has now received a letter from the Leader of the House suggesting that the Ponsonby rule might not apply in this particular case.
As you, Madam Speaker, are responsible for the rights of Back Benchers, do you agree that deciding whether the Ponsonby rule applies should not merely be a matter for the Government, but one in which you should be involved?
Will you take the opportunity to read the correspondence, which I am sure that the individuals concerned will make available to you, and perhaps make a statement on Monday about whether the Ponsonby rule applies in this case? Will you also confirm whether, if we are not entitled to a debate in Government time, the subject would be suitable for the Consolidated Fund debate later next week?
Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I was ready to answer the point of order in great detail, but go ahead.
Mr. Cohen: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) says. I have had a quick glance at the letter received by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and it seems to say that the Ponsonby rule does not apply because extra money will not be spent. That is highly dubious in this case. If Britain is to move from Polaris to Trident missiles, extra money will definitely be spent. The agreement covers, a 10-year period, so extra money is likely to be spent during that period.
If that is the reason that the Government are giving why the Ponsonby rule should not apply, I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that that is not appropriate and, as has been said, you should consider that most carefully. The matter should be brought to the Floor of the House so that we can have an opportunity to debate it and opposition can be expressed to that nuclear weapons policy.
Madam Speaker: With regard to whether the subject would be suitable for debate on the Consolidated Fund, I can tell the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that it would be a most appropriate matter to raise then.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to "Erskine May", page 215, which says:
"When a treaty requires ratification, the Government does not usually proceed with ratification until a period of twenty-one days has elapsed from the date on which the text of such a treaty was laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's command. This practice is subject to modification, if necessary, when urgent or other important considerations arise."

501
For the interest of the House, I might say that the practice known as the Ponsonby rule has its origin in a departmental minute dated 1 February 1924 and signed by Mr. Arthur Ponsonby, then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I shall look at the points raised by hon. Members.
Mr. Bennett: Further to my point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South registered a protest last Thursday, so there should be a debate? I should be grateful if you considered the matter further.
Madam Speaker: Thank you.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  SAFETY AT SEA
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6655/94, relating to training for maritime occupations (the 'training of seafarers Directive'), 11496/93 and 7919/94, relating to a European vessel reporting system in Community waters, and 5841/94, relating to ship safety and control of pollution (the 'port state control Directive'); endorses the Government's agreement to the formal adoption of the training of seafarers Directive and to a common position on the port state control Directive; and welcomes the Government's commendation to other Member States of Lord Donaldson's report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas (Cm 2560) as a valuable contribution to discussions on the proposed European vessel reporting system.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9400/92 and the unnumbered Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 29th November, relating to the protection of personal data; recognises that the Council of Europe Convention on data protection provides an adequate framework for data protection within the Union; believes that the Commission proposal would impose significant unnecessary bureaucratic burdens and very heavy additional and unacceptable costs for data users in the United Kingdom; remains of the view that the Directive breaches the principle of subsidiarity as provided by Article 3b of the Treaty of Rome (as inserted by the Treaty on European Union); and supports the Government's view that the case for a Community Directive on the lines proposed has not been made out.— [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Cleddau Bridge
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Before my Adjournment debate, I wish to present a petition signed by approximately 10,000 electors of Pembrokeshire, which declares that they are suffering an unfair burden as a result of the level of tolls on the Cleddau bridge and that the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority will be saddled with an unacceptable level of debt when the bridge is transferred to it in April 1996.
  502
  The petition concludes:
  "The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons resolves that the Secretary of State's 1979 pledge be met in full and that the Welsh Office must ensure the financial burden of the bridge does not fall on the people of Pembrokeshire."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Cleddau Bridge
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: As a result of the arrangements in this place, we now have an opportunity which I had not expected a couple of days ago to debate in full the complex issue and the long history of the Cleddau bridge. Basically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will be aware from the petition that I have just presented, the people of Pembrokeshire are extremely concerned about the financing of the Cleddau bridge, the burden that has already fallen on the people of Pembrokeshire and its industry since its opening in 1975, and the future burden that will have to be borne by council tax payers as well as motorists and haulage contractors during the period of the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority unless significant changes are made by the Government.
  This is not the first time that the issue has been debated in the House. On 19 March 1990, my Conservative predecessor, Nicholas Bennett, raised the subject with the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), although, sadly, without success. Since that Adjournment debate, a number of factors relating to the Cleddau bridge have changed and make the argument that the Welsh Office should take over its running and financing even more compelling.
  It would be useful if I went over the bridge's rather sad history. It was first proposed to build a bridge across the River Cleddau in 1943, during the war, and again in 1945 when it was envisaged that the crossing should be downstream of Pembroke Dock. In 1959, there was a further proposal for a barrage across the river. None of those ideas was implemented, but the plans for a bridge were revived in 1964 and the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 granted the council permission to build a bridge to replace a ferry which had been operating between Hobbs Point on the Pembroke Dock bank and Neyland on the northern bank of the River Cleddau or, as it is also known, the Milford Haven waterway.
  The House should be aware of the enormous limitation placed on Pembrokeshire's economy in the absence of a reasonable crossing between the north and south banks of the Milford Haven waterway. Before a bridge was built, if the ferry was not running due to bad weather or because it was too late at night or too early in the morning for shift workers to be about, an individual wishing to travel from Pembroke Dock to Milford Haven, which is further downstream than Neyland, would have to travel in excess of 30 miles. Clearly, it was of a matter of great importance to the Pembrokeshire economy that the natural barrier should be bridged.
  Tenders were invited in 1968. The original estimate for building the then brand new box-girder design bridge was £3,640,000. On 2 June 1970, the then partially completed bridge collapsed, tragically killing four workmen and damaging a number of properties in Pembroke Ferry, the hamlet below the bridge. Following that collapse and the collapse of bridges of similar design in Melbourne, Australia and in Munich, Germany, the Merrison committee examined the technical requirements to improve the structure before work continued.
  The council accepted the Merrison committee's recommendations which involved significant strengthening of the structure that was still standing and,
  504
  of course, of the new completed bridge. As a result of the adoption of those recommendations, the final capital cost when the bridge opened in 1975 was not just over £3 million but £11.83 million.
  The bridge has always been a political football in Pembrokeshire and it is worth while noting how it was treated throughout the 1970s. During the election campaign in October 1974—six months before the bridge was officially opened—the then Member of Parliament for Pembroke, now Lord Crickhowell, speaking with the full authority of a Conservative spokesman on Welsh affairs, said that the Conservative Government, were they elected, would take over the cost of constructing a bridge and would abolish proposed tolls. He said:
  "When the Pembrokeshire County Council planned the construction of the bridge they knew that it would make a great difference to the local economy but they could have had no idea of its crucial significance; they could have had no idea either that they might be faced with a disaster and a threefold increase in cost. It is quite clear that the burden of over £9 million is now too great for the ratepayers to shoulder and that any government will have to take over a substantial part of that burden … A conservative government would take urgent action to prepare for developments in the Celtic Sea and if oil were found they would see that resources were directed in those areas affected by the discoveries … It is wrong that local ratepayers should have to pay for something that is of key national significance, for the benefits of offshore oil will flow to the whole nation. We have said that Wales will benefit from offshore oil; I have now shown that we are determined to make that pledge a reality."
  It is worth noting that, on 2 November 1994, Marathon Oil announced the first strike of gas in the Celtic sea, 25 miles from the shores of Pembrokeshire.
  Let me take the House back to 1974.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I would not normally intervene during an Adjournment debate, but we are not suffering the usual time constraint. For the sake of accuracy, will my hon. Friend say whether the Lord Crickhowell to whom he referred is Nicholas Edwards, the Tory party candidate in Pembroke in 1979?
  Mr. Ainger: He is one and the same. I am glad that my hon. Friend has enabled me to clarify that point.
  In 1974, an inspector called Mr. J. R. Rawes reported on the proposed maximum tolls order on the Cleddau bridge. Paragraph 137 of his report stated that two thirds of the £11.83 million capital cost attributable to the Merrison committee's recommendation on the extra work needed to strengthen the bridge should be paid by the Exchequer. It continued:
  "This financial assistance from central funds should be an outright grant, inclusive of interest and inflation".
  Two thirds amounts to approximately £7 million. Inspector Rawes also said that if the county council subsequently won any damages from the designers or builders of the bridge no part of that settlement
  "should be claimable by, or payable to, the National Exchequer, as the transaction derives entirely from the provisions of the 1965 Act for which Dyfed County Council are alone accountable."
  The bridge opened on 20 March 1975, burdened from the outset by its tragic history and debts of some £11.83 million. Tolls were set at 15p for motor bikes, 30p for cars and 60p for heavy vehicles. Following a claim by the county council in the financial year 1978–79, it received some £3 million in insurance compensation from the designers and builders of the bridge.

  505
  The political history of the bridge did not end there. It again became a political football during the 1979 general election when the then Nicholas Edwards was still representing Pembroke. At his adoption meeting prior to the election he said that the pledge that he had given in the 1974 election to abolish tolls was no longer valid. He continued:
  "A pledge made at the time of an election does not stand if the party is defeated"—
  that is also true in this case or, from the experience that we have had during the past two years, when the party wins—
  "but in any case the situation today is totally different from that in 1974."
  Nicholas Edwards referred to the inspector's recommendation that the Government should pay for the Merrison elements, and said:
  "I now want to make it perfectly clear that a Conservative government would accept that recommendation and a commitment to that effect is contained in our Welsh election manifesto."
  I do not need to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on the Front Bench, nor the Minister, that, following the 1979 general election, the then hon. Member for Pembroke became the Secretary of State for Wales, and on 21 December 1979, the Welsh Office gave Dyfed county council not a grant but a £4 million interest-free loan, repayable over 40 years at some £100,000 a year. That neither satisfied the commitment to pay in full the cost of the Merrison recommendations, which were £7 million; nor was it an outright grant—it was a loan. In that year, because of the burdening debt accruing on the interest, tolls were raised—to 35p for cars and 70p for heavy vehicles. In 1985, tolls were raised again—to 50p for cars and £1 for heavy vehicles.
  As I said in my opening remarks, this is not the first time the issue has been debated, and I shall refer to my predecessor's Adjournment debate of 19 March 1990. The right hon. Member for Conwy, who was then Minister of State, said that the figure of £4 million had been arrived at because of the £3 million legal settlement won by the council, which had been discounted against the deemed £7 million cost of the Merrison element.
  That totally contradicted the inspector's recommendation that compensation should not be claimable by the Exchequer, and also the assurance given by the then hon. Member for Pembroke and subsequent Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards. The right hon. Member for Conwy said in 1990 that only a loan, not a grant, could be paid, because the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 prevented toll income being used to pay for grant-aided roads. In other words, if a grant was given, one could not charge tolls. If one insisted on doing so, one could not give a grant. That was true in 1979 when the loan of £4 million was made, but it certainly was not true when he said that in March 1990. I am not saying that the hon. Member for Conwy was trying to mislead the House, but he was incorrect, and I shall go on to that later.
  In that Adjournment debate, the then Minister of State went on to say:
  "Further Government assistance is not an option."—[Official Report, 19 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 988.]
  But by then the Dyfed Act 1987 was in force. That had repealed totally the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965. In a letter to me dated 8 February 1994, the then
  506
  Minister of State repeated that the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 prevented a grant being given and made no mention of the fact that it had been repealed. I then wrote back to him pointing out that the Act had been repealed, and in a further letter to me on 11 April this year he said:
  "I accept that the Dyfed Act 1987 has now repealed the Pembrokeshire County Council Act and this Act contains no similar provision restricting the use of the toll income."
  That was as true in 1990, at the time of the first Adjournment debate on the subject, as it is now in 1994.
  There is therefore no legal impediment to prevent the Welsh Office from giving grant aid instead of a loan to cover the spiralling debts on the bridge. In the letter of 11 April, the Minister went on to say:
  "However, the question remains as to whether the Department can justify the provision of any further assistance towards the Bridge."
  Perhaps the real question still remains whether the Welsh Office is willing to honour the election pledge given in 1979 now that there are no longer any legal impediments. I think that it is a question of political will.
  On 26 May this year, the Minister—
  Mr Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman rises, it is, of course, a convention of the House that this is a Back-Bench debate. With the permission of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who has the Adjournment debate, other hon. Members may take part, but by tradition not from the Front Bench. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) wishes to intervene or contribute, he really should change the position where he is sitting.
  Mr. Ainger: I have no objection to any hon. Member from any position in the House making a contribution to the debate. We are not pressured by time. It is an important issue—certainly for my constituents—and it touches on a number of very interesting national points as well.
  On 26 May this year, the Minister of State wrote to me after I had written to request financial assistance and trunking, following a delegation that I had led with council officials from South Pembrokeshire district council, Preseli-Pembrokeshire district council and also representatives of Dyfed county council. Even though up to 9,000 vehicles a day cross that bridge, the Minister of State said that the traffic on the bridge remained mainly local.
  Despite efforts to contain the growing deficit, in October 1993, tolls were again raised from 50p to 75p for cars and from £1 to £1.50 for heavy goods vehicles. The tragic history to date means that when the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority comes into being on 1 April 1996, it will inherit an estimated debt of up to £40 million. I shall give a breakdown of that, because certain issues are worth examining in detail. Some £5 million of the projected debt is the remaining capital loan debt. Part of it is owed to the local authority loans pool. Some £2.65 million is the remaining interest-free loan being repaid to the Welsh Office. Another £4.8 million is the cumulative operating deficit on the bridge account, which is separate from other county council finances. More than £11 million of interest is owed to council tax payers to meet deficiencies in years when there is a deficit in the bridge account—when toll

  507
  income does not cover costs, including interest charges. Between £15 million and £20 million is also required for strengthening costs due to be incurred between 1996 and 1999 to meet European regulations that will allow heavy lorries of up to 44 tonnes on to British roads. The county engineer cannot give an accurate estimate until full engineering surveys are carried out, but his estimate is that the figure will probably work out at between £15 million and £20 million.
  Dyfed's current population is about 350,000, of whom some 124,600 are band D-equivalent council tax payers. When the bridge is transferred to the new Pembrokeshire county council in April 1996 there will be only a third of the current number of council tax payers, and the burden will obviously fall far more heavily on that smaller population.
  The Welsh Office has told me that the county council is really at fault for not raising tolls more often in the past to cover deficits. In his letter of 26 May, the Minister of State wrote that
  "if implemented with regular proposals to increase tolls to cover the increased costs, the forecast deficits should be containable."
  In the same letter, he questioned the interest liability on the operating deficit—that £11 million. He said that the council "may apply interest" at 10 per cent., but had chosen not to do so thus far and could not do so retrospectively.
  In fact, interest has been calculated. Sections 24 and 25 of the Dyfed Act 1987 clearly intend local taxpayers to be compensated for covering deficits. Section 25 states:
  "Any deficiency in the revenue of the bridge in any financial year shall be made good in the first instance out of the reserve fund (if any) formed in connection with the bridge and if there be no such reserve fund or such reserve fund be insufficient for the purpose then out of the other moneys of the county council and in such case any such other moneys shall be repayable out of any future revenue of the bridge."
  Council tax payers are to be reimbursed, and interest can be paid only out of future revenue. The £11 million plus interest may be only a paper debt, but the uncertainty should be lifted from the new Pembrokeshire county council. In 1992–93, the Department of Transport provided for expenditure of some £43.5 million for exactly the same kind of debt in connection with the Humber bridge; I shall say more about that later.
  The effect of raising tolls still further could be devastating. On 22 February 1994, Huw Morse, Dyfed's county treasurer, wrote to the Minister of State giving deficit forecasts based on the cost of strengthening the bridge—a cost of between £15 million and £20 million. Those are the most up-to-date estimates; as I have said, a full engineering report would be necessary to provide a final and accurate estimate.
  Mr. Morse's projections show that if the strengthening cost is at the lower end of the scale—around £15 million—and traffic grows in line with national Department of Transport forecasts, toll increases of 6.65 per cent. every year would be needed to reduce the deficit to zero by the year 2022. The deficit would peak at around £52.1 million in the year 2002, when tolls would have to be £1.34 for cars and £2.68 for heavy vehicles.
  If the worst happened and the engineering cost was nearer £20 million, and if there was no traffic growth, tolls would have to rise by some 9.57 per cent. to remove the deficit by 2022. It would peak at about £62.2 million in the year 2002, when tolls would have to be £1.50 for cars and £3 for lorries.
  508
  In his letter, Mr. Morse told the Minister of State:
  "As the County council is operating within a capped regime funding these costs can only be done at the expense of other services. One can imagine the critical nature of such a picture which, when added to the cash limit approach adopted for local government expenditure, will mean wholesale reductions in many of the services provided by the council.
  The impact on a major county like Dyfed is devastating enough but the effect on a smaller unitary authority, possibly less than a third of its size, would be catastrophic."
  At current levels, tolls are projected to take £1.8 million out of the economy in this financial year. It is worth noting that, because of the chronic unemployment from which my constituency suffers and because of the numerous defence closures announced just before the 1992 general election, the then Secretary of State for Wales set up the west Wales task force, giving it a budget of some £12.5 million over five years. That constituted £2.25 million of additional help for the west Wales economy. The contradiction is that, because the Welsh Office refused to take any action to assist in reducing the debt or the toll level, £1.8 million is now being taken out of our local economy.
  The petition that I presented earlier, signed by approximately 10,000 people, states that the burden of the Cleddau bridge should not fall on the people of Pembrokeshire. I do not want them to bear that burden, whether as motorists, commercial operators of heavy goods vehicles or council tax payers. Our economy has suffered more than its fair share in the past few years, as a result of defence closures and unemployment that has remained persistently high. In Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock, the two main towns nearest to each side of the bridge, unemployment rates were 17.8 per cent. and 12.8 per cent. respectively in October this year, on narrow base rates.
  Extracting yet higher tolls to try to contain the deficit constitutes a tax on jobs. That option, and cutting services to meet the debt burden, are both unacceptable. Many people have to cross the bridge to obtain essential services: the Minister of State will know that the Withybush general hospital is based in Haverfordwest, and the 30,000 or so people who live south of the Cleddau must cross the bridge to go to the hospital for admission or to visit relatives. People living south of the river who work in Haverfordwest or Milford Haven, in the Elf or Gulf refineries, must also cross the bridge. The same is true of people living in the north of the county who work in the Texaco refinery, or at the power station on the southern side of the Milford Haven waterway.
  Industry has developed on both sides of the Haven. People living on the opposite side from their workplace will have to find an additional £7.50 a week, at current levels. The Minister may know that, sadly, west Wales has one of the lowest pay levels in the United Kingdom. This additional burden is totally unfair.
  The Government really should accept their responsibility for both the economic well-being of the area and the whole trunk road system. The Welsh Office has been asked several times to designate the bridge part of the trunk road network, most recently in December last year. Trunking would clearly be the best solution to avoid the potential disaster that faces the new Pembrokeshire county council, along with recognition by central Government of their responsibilities. Clearly, the bridge is, in effect, part of the national road network. It is bracketed to the south by the A477, which is trunked and

  509
  only 1 km away from the southern side of the bridge. To the north of the bridge, the A476 is only some 6 km away. The 8 km stretch containing the bridge is the only section of major road linking south, west and north Wales which is not trunked.
  The Welsh Office's refusal to help the people of Pembrokeshire sharply contrasts with the Department of Transport's attitude towards Humber bridge, which currently has debts of more than £430 million. In the financial year 1992–93, the Department of Transport provided £43.5 million to the Humber Bridge Board and it has promised legislation to avoid the board having to precept local authorities to solve the problem.
  It is interesting to note that, per metre of length, the Humber bridge is cheaper than Cleddau bridge. One pence of toll on Humber bridge allows one to travel 13.9 m whereas 1p of toll on Cleddau bridge allows one to travel only 10.9 m. The Government's inconsistent approach to the national importance of estuarial crossings has been highlighted in a report by the Select Committee on Transport in 1985. It said that tolls were a selective monopoly charge and the policy that the costs of estuarial crossings should be borne by the local population was applied inconsistently. It pointed out that the following bridges were estuarial crossings, but were untolled: Avonmouth bridge, Ballachulish bridge, Moray and Cromarty firth bridges, Friarton bridge in Perth, Runcorn-Widnes bridge, the Clyde tunnel and M8 Kingston bridge, the Medway crossing and Dornoch firth bridge.
  It is worth noting that, in Wales, the Conwy tunnel and the M4 over the Usk at Newport are untolled. The new extension of the M4 at Briton Ferry, again over an estuary, is untolled. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that the new Dee crossing will not be tolled, even though its estimated cost amounts to more than £50 million.
  The Select Committee on Transport report went on to say that, if the Government recognised Humber bridge's problems, they could recognise the problems of other bridges as well. It also said that assuming responsibility for debts would not mean finding cash. Debts to the Public Works Loan Board, like those owed by Dyfed county council for Cleddau bridge, and to central Government need have no effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. The report said:
  "The transfer of responsibility for servicing all the debt to central government would only be a transfer within the public sector".
  Therefore, it would have no impact on the PSBR.
  The Government response to that report was to reiterate the arguments about special local advantages for estuarial crossings, but they were
  "willing to consider reasoned argument for special treatment in particular cases."
  In the case of Pembrokeshire, the Welsh Office has said that the liabilities of the new authority would be reflected in its standard spending assessment. Before I entered this place, I was a county councillor in Dyfed. I regularly heard Welsh Office Ministers assure local government, when particular problems were raised with them and they accepted those problems, that the money would appear in the council's rate support grant. No one was able to find
  510
  it. I have heard promises like that before and it becomes extremely hard to identify where and whether extra money has been forthcoming for particular problems.
  If the Welsh Office is to provide extra money in the standard spending assessment or the revenue support grant, why does not it take over financial responsibility directly rather than use the new Pembrokeshire authority as a third party? Its approach implies that the Welsh Office accepts that there is a problem and money needs to be found, so why does not it go the whole way and take over full responsibility? If it will not provide extra money, it is meaningless to say that the burden of Cleddau bridge will be reflected in the new authority's settlement.
  It is clear that the new Pembrokeshire authority, which has been welcomed by everyone in my constituency, will face a massive financial problem because of the bridge. The Minister has been warned by the treasurer of the outgoing county council of a potential catastrophe. The problem arises from an undertaking that was made, not even by the present council, but by the previous one. It was greatly worsened by circumstances that were not of that authority's own making. There has been a fatal collapse of the bridge and the problem has been exacerbated still further by the Government's failure to live up to a pledge to provide help. The problem is likely to be doubled again because of the circumstances—the need to strengthen the bridge to meet new legislative requirements, which no one could have foreseen when the bridge was first built. For all those reasons, it would be a clear abdication of responsibility for the Welsh Office to refuse to help.
  This is now the second Adjournment debate on this subject. The first was raised by a Conservative Member and this one has been raised by a Labour Member. I urge the Minister to accept that Cleddau bridge can and should be treated in the same way as the Dee crossing, the Briton Ferry crossing and the Conwy tunnel. The Welsh Office should accept its responsibility.
  5.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has raised concerns about various matters relating to Cleddau bridge and to the effect on his constituents. I noticed that he did it in a way that sought to emulate the standards of his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Bennett. In going through so much history, I feel that I, too, am following in the footsteps of predecessors—my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell and my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who was Minister of State.
  Before we go too much into recycling, the reaction might be, "What is new about going down this road or going across this bridge?" The bridge is owned and operated by Dyfed county council. Apart from certain reserve powers possessed by the Secretary of State of Transport with regard to the revision of tolls, the county council has sole responsibility for charging, collecting and reviewing tolls under the Dyfed Act 1987.
  It was always intended that the bridge should be a self-financing project, with debt charges being recovered over a 50-year period. Those charges, together with operation and maintenance costs, are met by tolls levied on users of the bridge. That was clear to the then Pembrokeshire county council at the outset and has remained the case since.

  511
  The bridge opened to traffic in March 1975. Construction costs increased from the original estimate of £3 million to £12 million on completion. The increase was mainly due to a delay during construction following the collapse of the bridge superstructure and the need to comply subsequently with the recommendations of the Merrison committee on box-girder bridges.
  The Government inspector who took the public inquiry into a tolls review in 1974, under the previous legislation contained in the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965, recommended that the additional costs to the county council of applying the Merrison committee's standards should be transferred from local ratepayers to the Exchequer. The inspector estimated those costs to be £7 million or more.
  Dyfed county council, in an out-of-court settlement with the consulting engineers who designed the bridge, obtained compensation of £3 million. That left a sum of£4 million attributable to the Merrison requirements. The Government took the view that, because of the exceptional circumstances, it was appropriate to give assistance to the county council on a one-off basis. A £4 million interest-free loan that was repayable over 40 years was, therefore, made to the council. That represented a full response to the commitment made in 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell.
  In 1979, the only way in which the Government could provide financial assistance to the county council was through an interest-free loan. Grant aid was not possible under the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965, under whose powers the bridge was constructed. If a grant had been paid, toll receipts could not have been used towards any construction, maintenance or improvement costs. As I understand it, Parliament's intention in 1965, under the then Labour Government, was to prevent tolls from being used to meet bridge costs that were also grant aided.
  Mr. Ainger: I accept what the Minister has said about the legal impediment—I, too, referred to it in my speech—but the argument concerns whether the loan should have been for £4 million or £7 million. Inspector Rawes argued that the loan should not take into account any compensation that the county council was to receive as a result of a legal challenge against the consulting engineer. Does the Minister accept that the £4 million loan did not fully meet the recommendation made by Inspector Rawes?
  Mr. Jones: No. As I understand it, the recommendation was that none of the compensation should go to the Exchequer. It did not; it went to Dyfed county council. To comply, the Government gave a grant for what the county council had not obtained by compensation to ensure that that bill did not fall on Dyfed county council.
  As the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, and as was confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy, the Dyfed Act 1987 has repealed the old Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965. I accept that the 1987 Act contains no similar provision restricting the use of toll income. I do not believe, however, that the financial projections prepared by Dyfed county council justify the need for further central Government assistance towards the bridge. Traffic figures and income projections show that, if the highway authority behaves responsibly in reviewing and setting tolls, future revenue will be sufficient to meet future costs. The projections indicate
  512
  that the forecast deficits on the bridge should be containable without grant assistance, subject to regular increases in tolls to cover increased costs, such as the proposed strengthening programme.
  In March this year, the balance on the interest-free loan stood at £2.6 million, repayable over the next 26 years. The actual total debt was £5.1 million and is steadily declining year by year. The large accumulated deficits, which are often quoted, are misleading. I know that the hon. Gentleman seeks to guard the most extreme case when he arrives at his £40 million projection and the size of future tolls.
  The county council is empowered to charge interest at 10 per cent. per annum on deficiencies in the revenue on the bridge, but it has chosen not to do so. It is precluded from introducing retrospective charging of such interest. In fact, the bridge generated satisfactory surplus from 1986 to 1992. The 1992–93 deficit of £257,000 was primarily due to higher than usual maintenance charges. The bridge managed to break even in 1993–94.
  In response to the Select Committee's 1986 report on tolled crossings, the Government said that they were unable to accept the recommendation that they should write off or discharge the debts of tolled crossings. The Government felt there was no reason that the Exchequer should assume responsibilities for obligations freely incurred by the promoting authorities in accordance with their enabling legislation. It was felt that most crossings were either viable or could become so under prudent financial management. That does not, of course, include the exceptional case of the Humber bridge, which would represent a debt of £220 per person per year as local tax had it not been treated in a different way. The arrangement for that bridge is the legacy that we had to take on from a Labour Government, who were desperate to win a by-election.
  The 1991 annual inspection of the Cleddau bridge showed that major items of work were necessary in the following 10 years. In addition, with European legislation introducing a 40 tonne weight limit for vehicles from January 1999, it will be necessary to carry out an assessment of the structure to determine its capacity to carry such loads. An initial assessment by the county council shows that the maintenance and strengthening work will cost between £5 million and £20 million.
  Resources for assessing and strengthening bridges are provided via the local government revenue settlement, but strengthening work is not the only option. The costs and benefits of that work need to be assessed. It may be—I can say no more than that—more sensible for Dyfed county council to consider whether, subject to complying with the necessary statutory requirements, weight restrictions might be applied to the bridge.
  Under arrangements agreed with local authorities, transport grant can be available for major road improvements. Priority for transport grant is given to road improvements costing more than £5 million and which meet value-for-money criteria. I would not rule out the consideration of a transport grant bid to strengthen the Cleddau bridge. In the absence of an assessment showing that strengthening would be justified, it seems unlikely that such a bid would be supported within the parameters of the scheme. I will, of course, consider evidence which the authority may wish to provide.

  513
  The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that, following local government reorganisation, responsibility for the bridge will pass to the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority. He is right, too, when he says that the debt associated with the bridge will also transfer to the new authority. He ignores, however, two important points: first, the new authority will inherit the asset and receive the benefit of toll income; and, secondly, the allowance within the new authority's standard spending assessment for debt charges will reflect its total debt portfolio. The creation of the new authority represents a reversion to the original authority that introduced the legislation to build the bridge. I know that the new authority is warmly welcomed in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as our popular reforms are usually greeted throughout Wales.
  The failure of Dyfed county council to use its powers under its veto to consider and, if necessary, revise regularly the level of tolls has contributed to the bridge's present financial position. Tolls did not increase for eight years between 1985 and 1993.
  The hon. Gentleman has repeated the calls that have been made previously for the A477 between Pembroke Dock and Johnston on the A4076 to be made into a trunk road. The trunk road network is a national system of routes for through traffic. While, at peak times, up to 9,000 vehicles per day might use the Cleddau bridge, in the main it deals with local rather than through traffic. According to the latest statistics for 1992–93, the average is even lower than 9,000, because a total of 2,582,108 vehicles crossed the bridge, which I equate with an average of slightly under 7,400 a day. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the third Dee crossing, which is used by 24,000 vehicles a day. The new link with the M4, Fabian way, is also a relevant consideration because it carries 30,000 vehicles a day.
  The bridge was provided by the local authority to meet the local need, and no evidence has been provided to suggest that it meets a broader national need. As the hon. Gentleman accepted, the area already has good access to the trunk road network at Pembroke Dock and at Johnston on the A4076. Those links provide good access to the dual carriageway at St. Clears via the A477 and A40 and thereafter to the M4. Those links are trunk roads.
  The Government's commitment to improving road communications in Wales is clearly demonstrated by a high level of expenditure. Since 1979, more than £2 billion has been spent on the construction and improvement of 25 miles of the M4 and more than 160 miles of trunk road. Nine major improvement schemes providing another 30 miles of motorway and trunk road are under construction.
  The rate of spend per head of population in Wales is greater than in England and Scotland. This high level of investment will continue with expenditure of about £200 million planned to be spent on trunk roads in the current financial year. Plans for 1995–96 will be announced shortly.
  Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales undertook a review of our trunk road priorities in Wales. These were subsequently detailed in our document "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review". Our main strategic objectives for Wales are extending the A55
  514
  dualling in the north across Anglesey and, in the south, completion and further improvement of the M4 and dualling the A465.
  Completion of the M4 will be realised in four days' time when the two remaining sections of the "M4 missing link" between Baglan and Lonlas are finished. We will then have a continuous motorway of some 220 miles from Pont Abraham in Dyfed right through to London. Moving eastwards along the M4, work is progressing on the Brynglas tunnels-Malpas relief road scheme and on the approach roads to the second Severn crossing. Future M4 proposals include widening the Castleton to Coryton and Magor to Newport—Coldra—sections of the M4 and we are assessing responses in the recently completed second public consultation on the route for the proposed M4 relief motorway around Newport.
  Those improvements to the M4 underline our commitment to improving road links to west Wales. "Roads in Wales" confirms that improving the A40 to Fishguard and the A477 to Pembroke are high priorities. On the A40, work on the Whitland bypass is due to start next month and preparation work on the Fishguard western bypass is well advanced. Public consultation will take place this month on the planned Robeston-Wathen bypass. A preferred route for the A477 Sageston-Redberth bypass has recently been announced. Also on the A477, the improvement at Red Roses junction is being advanced and we are considering the scope for further improvements on the section between Llanddowror and Red Roses. Those improvements are designed to enable traffic to flow freely. Further improvements will be brought forward where those are justified.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to supporting the economy of west Wales, particularly through the west Wales task force. I am glad that he acknowledges our action in setting up the task force and providing the sums of money required. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that unemployment has been falling in Wales, as it has been throughout the country.
  I have looked at the unemployment figures for travel-to-work areas, and I note that in Haverfordwest unemployment has fallen from 11.7 per cent. in October of last year, to 9.9 per cent. in October this year. Similarly, in south Pembrokeshire, unemployment is down from 14.4 per cent. to 10.7 per cent. In Dyfed, unemployment is down from 9.5 per cent. to 8.2 per cent. That spread of figures compares appropriately with the fall in unemployment for Wales from 10 per cent. to 8.8 per cent.
  Mr. Ainger: There is a peculiar reason for that fall in Pembrokeshire between October 1993 and October 1994, which was the fact that the Texaco refinery blew up in July 1994. Literally hundreds of new jobs were created in a short period to make good the refinery. Overall, we were still no better off in October 1994 than we were in October 1993. The fall in unemployment is merely because of the work carried out on the refinery.
  Mr. Jones: Part of what the hon. Gentleman says must be true. I know the significance of the Texaco incident, as I visited the refinery a few days after that dreadful explosion. But what he says is not fully borne out, either by the figures which I quoted for the whole of Dyfed—which would not be affected by Texaco alone—or by the Welsh figures which I also quoted. The hon. Gentleman is seeing the fruits and the benefits of the Government's successful economic policies coming home. They are achieving a better framework which business and industry are taking advantage of in creating new jobs in Wales. The hon. Gentleman should know that Wales is leading the UK, as the UK, in turn, is leading Europe.
  For the current financial year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £4.9 million package of financial allocations under the 1994–95 round of the strategic development scheme in support of a range of
  516
  projects which will benefit the west Wales task force area. Nearly 800 bids were submitted under the 1995–96 round and an announcement can be expected shortly.
  I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman as he would wish. The picture which he paints of, on the one hand, responsible action by Dyfed county council and a major problem looming for the new unitary authority and, on the other, an uncaring and miserly Welsh Office does not reflect the facts. The county council is already in receipt of a £4 million interest-free loan. That was an exceptional measure and was taken in specific recognition of the unique circumstances of the bridge following its collapse during construction. The new unitary authority will inherit an asset and its standard spending assessment will take account of servicing its loan debt. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not persuaded that there is a case for further assistance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Six o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Innovation Advisory Board
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the innovation advisory board in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The innovation advisory board was wound up in September 1993. No formal successor arrangements have been put in place, but the Department's innovation unit, which contains 15 industrial secondees, is taking forward much of the board's work. The secretariat of the IAB was provided by staff of the Department of Trade and Industry; independent external members were appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their pre-eminence in relevant subjects rather than as representatives of particular businesses. The board advised the Department on various aspects of innovation policy, providing advice to the Secretary of State or senior officials as appropriate. The board gained a reputation, externally and internally, as a strong and effective champion of innovation and a valuable source of advice to DTI.

  In the financial year 1991–92, the board met six times and in 1992–93 four times. It did not meet in 1993–94. The focus of its work during these periods was the interface between industry and financial institutions and between industry and education. The style of working was to prompt action by others. The board did not produce many reports or submissions. Those produced during these periods were:

  Reports

  1991–92

  First United Kingdom Company R and D Scoreboard

  "Innovation Plans Handbook" providing guidance to companies on how to present their innovation plans to investors and guidance to investors on how to examine such plans.

  1992–93

  Guidance on a modular masters degree in the management of technology Second R and D Scoreboard.

  Submissions

  1991–92

  Submission to the Cadbury Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. Submission to the Accountancy Standards Board of Financial Reporting Exposure Draft.

  294

  Programme Expenditure for these periods was:

  £

  1991–92

  124,068.35

  1992–93

  5,000.74

  1993–94

  0

  Staff costs were also incurred, but since these were an integral part of other related activities it would be disproportionately costly to identify these separately or to search for budgeted spend in the same periods.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which section of is Department is assessing the industrial policy issues involved in RAF procurement of long-range transports.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Department's aerospace division is working with the Ministry of Defence and other interested Departments on the industrial implications of the Hercules replacement programme.

  Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what has been the total cost to date to public funds of the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry into the complaint made against the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre;

  (2) who advises the Director General of Fair Trading in relation to Scottish law;

  (3) from how many Edinburgh solicitors the Office, of Fair Trading sought views on the complaint brought against the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre;

  (4) on how many occasions officials from the Office of Fair Trading have visited Scotland in the course of their inquiry into the complaint made against the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre;

  (5) on whose authority a press release was issued by the Office of Fair Trading on 22 November regarding the referral of the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre to the restrictive practices court, Scotland; and what is the usual practice of putting such information into the public domain before the subject of the press release has been informed of the action being taken;

  (6) what representations have been received by the Director General of Fair Trading concerning the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre; and how many were from members of the public;

  (7) when the Solicitor's Office informed the Office of Fair Trading that it would be issuing a notice of referral to the restrictive practices court (Scotland) to the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre; when this referral was issued; and whether the issue preceded or succeeded the publication of a press release by the Office of Fair Trading referring to the office's action in this matter.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, is responsible for administering the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. I have today asked Sir Bryan to consider the questions that the hon. Member has put about the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre and he will write to him in due course.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many officials and at what grades in(a) his Department and (b) the Office of Fair Trading have been

  295
  involved in investigating a complaint against the Edinburgh solicitors' property centre.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Department of Trade and Industry officials have not been involved. I am asking Sir Bryan Carsberg to write to the hon. Member about the involvement of his officials.

  Property Sales, Edinburgh
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the competitive position of the estate agents seeking instructions for the sale of properties in the Edinburgh area.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.

  Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions he or his predecessors have made an order under section 11 or 12 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in relation to services provided by solicitors.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Services provided by solicitors in their capacity as such are excluded by paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. Any other services provided by solicitors are brought under section 11 by the Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order 1976—SI 1976 No.98. That order has been amended three times: 1985 No.2044, 1986 NO.2204 and 1989 No.1082. No order has been made under section 12.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to a Government contribution to the support costs of the future large aircraft project; and when he expects to complete it.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The development of military aircraft is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, but the Department is closely involved in considering the industrial implications of the proposed project.

  Civil Air Transports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies his Department is(a) undertaking directly or (b) has commissioned into new long-range civil air transports; and when he expects to make their conclusions available to Parliament.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such studies have been undertaken or commissioned, but the Department is in regular contact with the United Kingdom aerospace industry on market projections and plans for new projects.

  Telephones
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he intends to take to ensure that the sound levels in telephone receivers are at a level which will not disadvantage the deaf and hard of hearing.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department is reviewing the technical requirements for United Kingdom approval of telecommunications terminal equipment, including telephones. The identified essential requirements are being consolidated into draft national technical regulations and these are being made available for a296
  statutory consultation with interested parties, including organisations representing people with hearing difficulties. There are no proposals to reduce sound levels in telephone receivers.

  Disqualification Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of initial unfit conduct reports received during the past six years from insolvency practitioners, pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 were received within the time limits specified in the Act;

  (2) if he will make a statement of what measures he has taken to ensure that insolvency practitioners fulfil their statutory requirement in relation to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 requires an insolvency practitioner to report forthwith when it appears to him that the conduct of a director makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a limited company. Where he has not so reported, he is required to submit a return no later than six months after his appointment as officeholder.

  Statistics are not available for the past six years, but the National Audit Office examined a representative sample of 102 initial reports submitted between April and June 1992, which showed that 22 per cent. were received within six months.

  In March 1993, the Insolvency Service issued guidelines to insolvency practitioners to assist them in complying with their obligations to report unfit conduct in a timely way but without sacrifice to quality. These guidelines have been re-enforced by newsletters to insolvency practitioners.

  In addition, insolvency practitioners are subject to monitoring visits either by their authorising bodies or by the joint insolvency monitoring unit, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with insolvency legislation including the requirements of the Company Directors Disqualification Act.

  In 1995, separate visits will be undertaken by the Insolvency Service to practitioners who have demonstrated poor compliance with the Act. If there is no subsequent improvement in performance, the practitioner will face possible licensing action or in extreme cases prosecution.

  Public Telephones (Unauthorised Displays)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will propose legislation to make it lawful for a supplier of telephone services to disconnect lines advertised by unauthorised displays at public telephones.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have no plans to do so. Although I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about this matter, it would not be appropriate to seek to regulate the placing of advertisements in unauthorised places through telecommunications legislation.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on the Internet
  297
  and the documents which he intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.uk" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In line with a recent Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency initiative, my officials are actively considering how the facilities of the Internet might add value to current arrangements for the distribution of departmental information. This consideration includes the use of the world wide web server, "open.gov.uk."

  As previously stated, the Command Paper "Developing Broadband Communications in the UK" was placed on the CCTA Government service Internet server a few days after publication and there have been around 1,750 accesses to date.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, what has been the change in United Kingdom exports of finished manufactures to (a) the EEC and (b) non-EEC countries since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  From 1984 to 1993, the value of United Kingdom exports of finished manufactures increased by 198 per cent. to the EC and by 77 per cent. to non-EC countries.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when Her Majesty's Government will introduce legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention;

  (2) what preparations his Department has made for the implementation of the chemical weapons convention and for the establishment of the national authority.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Primary legislation is required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the chemical weapons convention. This will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and other Government legislative priorities permit.

  My Department has a section dedicated to preparing for the implementation of the CWC, including the establishment of a national authority. These preparations are now at an advanced stage. We have been liaising closely with other Government Departments which have an interest in the CWC and with industry representatives. My Department will be issuing a discussion document early in the New Year, to canvass industry views on the implementation of the CWC in industry in the UK.

  Mortgage Insurance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to limit the costs of premiums of mortgage insurance policies.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. The Secretary of State's powers under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 are primarily concerned with the solvency of insurance companies and, except where such matters are concerned, he does not intervene in their day-to-day business.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make it a requirement for 298
  providers of mortgage insurance to make full disclosure of management and similar costs at the point of sale of mortgage insurance.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No. This would not be appropriate. The United Kingdom general insurance market is already highly competitive. In addition, the Association of British Insurer's general business code of practice requires insurance intermediaries not to impose any charge in addition to the premium required by the insurer without disclosing the amount and purpose of such charge and to disclose, on request, the commission.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that mortgage insurance policies allow those individuals claiming under their policies to take short-term employment without losing their right to continue to claim under their policies when that period of employment concludes;

  (2) what action he is planning to take to ensure that providers of mortgage insurance limit increases in premiums for those individuals who have previously suffered a period of unemployment;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to require insurers to provide mortgage insurance to the self-employed, to those on fixed contracts and to those in part-time work.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No. This is a matter for the underwriting judgment of individual insurance companies.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the total annual cost in premiums if all mortgages taken out after October 1995 were to be covered by mortgage insurance for the financial year 1995–96 and each of the following four financial years.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is not possible to provide a realistic estimate because mortgage lending in the period in question cannot be predicted.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the total amount paid out on mortgage insurance policies in the last full financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Association of British Insurers estimates that claims paid in 1993 amounted to £156 million.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the total premiums paid in mortgage insurance for the last full financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Association of British Insurers estimates that premiums paid for mortgage protection insurance in 1993 amounted to £220 million.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the number of mortgage insurance policies currently in operation which cover(a) 50 per cent. or more and (b) less than 50 per cent. of the full cost of the associated mortgage for (i) one year or less, (ii) two years or less, (iii) three years or less and (iv) more than .three years.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Association of British Insurers estimates that some 1.1 million policies are in force. Generally, policies cover 100 per cent. of the cost of the associated mortgage. The ABI estimates that 90 per cent. of the policies will pay up to one year and 10 per cent. up to two years. The ABI is not aware of any policies that pay for more than two years.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any British oil exploration contracts in the East Timor gap have been approved by the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that one United Kingdom company is licensed to explore for oil and gas in this region.

  Energy Advisory Panel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests he has received from external bodies to use the collective expertise on his energy advisory panel to assist them in energy assessment; and what reports he has received to date from the energy advisory panel.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 2 December 1994]: I have received no such requests. The panel has not produced specific reports.

  Capital
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, what has been the change in net capital employed in manufacturing in real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: Figures on net capital stock by sector are published in table 14.7 in the Central Statistical Office Blue Book—United Kingdom national accounts—which is available in the Library of the House. Net capital stock figures by industry are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the increase in real terms in net capital employed in(a) United Kingdom manufacturing and (b) commercial and industrial firms other than manufacturing since 1979; and to what extent he ascribes the difference to the Government's fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: Figures on net capital stock by sector are published in table 14.7 in the Central Statistical Office Blue Book—United Kingdom national accounts—which is available in the Library of the House. Net capital stock figures by industry are not available. The capital employed by a firm is influenced by a number of factors including expected demand and rates of return.

  Export Credits
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list export credits to Oman since 1979, by year, and state the percentage increases or decreases each year.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: ECGD support for capital goods and project business in Oman and the percentage increase or decrease each year is given in the table:

  Business (£ million)

  Percentage Increase/Decrease

  1980–81

  305.7

  n/a

  1981–82

  65.94

  -78.39

  1982–83

  415.06

  +529.45

  300

  Business (£ million)

  Percentage Increase/Decrease

  1983–84

  305.54

  -26.39

  1984–85

  40.65

  -86.70

  1985–86

  77.19

  +89.89

  1986–87

  65.67

  -14.92

  1987–88

  0.00

  -100.00

  1988–89

  0.06

  n/a

  1989–90

  0.35

  +483.33

  1990–91

  349.51

  +99,760.00

  1991–92

  0.10

  -99.97

  1992–93

  44.48

  +44,380.00

  1993–94

  413.39

  +829.38

  Reliable comparative data is not available prior to 1980–81.

  The figures for 1993–94 remain provisional pending publication of ECGD's Trading Accounts for the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list export credits to India since 1979, by year, and state the percentage increases or decreases each year.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: ECGD support for capital goods and project business in India and the percentage increase or decrease each year is given in the table:

  Business (£ Million)

  Percentage Increase/Decrease

  1980–81

  51.73

  n/a

  1981–82

  42.44

  -17.96

  1982–83

  626.57

  +1,376.37

  1983–84

  224.15

  -64.23

  1984–85

  74.52

  -66.75

  1985–86

  35.97

  -51.73

  1986–87

  86.37

  +140.12

  1987–88

  83.35

  -3.50

  1988–89

  5.03

  -93.97

  1989–90

  79.65

  +1,483.50

  1990–91

  69.84

  -12.32

  1991–92

  12.81

  -81.66

  1992–93

  101.97

  +696.02

  1993–94

  208.54

  +104.51

  Reliable comparative data is not available prior to 1980–81.

  The figures for 1993–94 remain provisional pending publication of ECGD's Trading Accounts for the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list export credits to Turkey since 1979, by year, and state the percentage increases or decreases each year.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: ECGD support for capital goods and project business in Turkey and the percentage increase or decrease each year is given in the table:

  Business (£ million)

  Percentage Increase/Decrease

  1980–81

  16.12

  n/a

  1981–82

  3.94

  -75.56

  1982–83

  0.23

  -94.16

  1983–84

  75.24

  +3,2613.04

  1984–85

  7.93

  -89.46

  1985–86

  165.42

  +1,986.00

  1986–87

  38.14

  -76.94

  1987–88

  49.42

  +29.58

  1988–89

  125.09

  +153.12

  1989–90

  54.66

  -56.30

  1990–91

  51.02

  -6.66

  301

  Business (£ million)

  Percentage Increase/Decrease

  1991–92

  175.41

  +243.81

  1992–93

  130.32

  -25.71

  1993–94

  111.85

  -14.17

  Reliable comparative data is not available prior to 1980–81.

  The figures for 1993–94 remain provisional pending publication of ECGD's Trading Accounts for the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list export credits to Indonesia since 1979, by year, stating percentage increases or decreases each year.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: ECGD support for capital goods and project business in Indonesia and the percentage increase or decrease each year is given in the table:

  Business (£ million)

  Percentage Increase/Decrease

  1980–81

  9.31

  n/a

  1981–82

  149.94

  +1,510.53

  1982–83

  566.35

  +277.72

  1983–84

  301.08

  -46.84

  1984–85

  248.75

  -17.38

  1985–86

  139.75

  -43.82

  1986–87

  72.74

  -47.95

  1987–88

  47.92

  -34.12

  1988–89

  67.36

  +40.57

  1989–90

  52.29

  -22.37

  1990–91

  149.59

  +186.08

  1991–92

  124.11

  -17.03

  1992–93

  450.40

  +262.90

  1993–94

  100.14

  -77.77

  Reliable comparative data are not available prior to 1980–81.

  The figures for 1993–94 remain provisional pending publication of ECGD's Trading Accounts for the 1993–94 financial year.

LORD CHANCELLOR' S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates, Teesside
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will consider appointing at least one stipendiary magistrate at Teesside.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is pleased to consider the appointment of stipendiary magistrates following requests from the local advisory committees. No request has been received from the South Cleveland advisory committee.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many lay magistrates are currently needed to bring the Teesside bench up to full strength.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The required strength of any bench is determined by the number of magistrates needed to deal with the work without the annual number of half-day sittings for individual magistrates being excessive. The strength of the Teesside bench on 1 December was 274, and a further 23 people are being recommended to the Lord Chancellor for appointment. The current and projected annual average number of sittings per magistrate is 43, which is a little high but is not regarded by the Lord Chancellor as excessive.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what occasions since 1979 civil servants in his Department have been asked to draft speeches of a constituency nature for use in a Minister's own constituency.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. Civil servants may provide briefing of a factual nature for Ministers on matters relating to their own Departments. In addition, Ministers, in preparing for a constituency speech, can draw on material produced by their Department during the normal course of business.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Maintenance and refurbishment works carried out in 1992–93 totalled £18,444,000 and in 1993–94, £21,094,000. The figures for 1991–92 are not readily available, nor are details of schemes in 1992–93. Details of expenditure on major court refurbishment schemes during 1993–94 was as follows:

  £

  Lewes Combined Court

  3,118,000

  Lincoln Castle Crown Court

  482,000

  Nottingham Combined Court

  642,000

  Plymouth Combined Court

  364,000

  Royal Courts of Justice

  3,233,000

  The balance was expended by regional budget holders on a variety of works, a proportion of which would be in respect of refurbishment schemes. However, the detailed information could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of people of the United Kingdom were eligible for free legal aid in each year from 1990 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department estimates the percentage of households qualifying for civil legal aid without a contribution as follows:

  1990: —29 per cent.

  1991: —25 per cent.

  1992: —27 per cent.

  1993: —21 per cent.

  The figures are based on the family expenditure survey reports for the years in question.

DEFENCE

  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the location of the proposed joint service command and staff college.
  303
  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls).

  Staff Colleges
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the staff colleges with particular reference to the staff college, Camberley, Surrey.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In my statement on 14 July 1994, I announced that further work was in hand to examine whether the joint service command and staff college should be located at Camberley or Greenwich and whether junior command and staff training should take place on the same site. This work has now been concluded and I am satisfied that Camberley is by far the most appropriate and cost-effective site for both activities, and that staff training at Bracknell and Greenwich should cease. I have decided that this proposal should be the basis for consultation. A consultative document will be issued in the next few weeks.

  I recognise the need to ensure that fitting occupants are found for such an important site as the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. We are now considering a number of potential candidates to occupy these buildings, including a restructured defence school of languages, for which Wilton Park, Beaconsfield is unlikely to remain an appropriate home. Work is continuing to determine which would provide the best balance of suitability and compatibility. I hope to be in a position to announce a proposal for the future of Greenwich early next year, on which we will consult separately.

  Unless there is an alternative defence use for the RAF staff college at Bracknell, my intention would be to dispose of it. Similarly, if work in hand at present determines that there is no longer any need to retain Wilton Park, Beconsfield, that will also be disposed of.

  Further work is under way to determine the effect on staff numbers of these proposals. Once final proposals for Greenwich can be made, we shall consult separately on the specific staffing impact on Greenwich, Beaconsfield and any other site affected. Every effort will be made to minimise the need for redundancies.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the development of plans for transfer of the married quarters estate to the private sector.

  Mr. Soames
  It is too early to be confident that such a transfer will be possible on terms which will satisfy our requirements. Nonetheless, the initial work undertaken for us by NatWest Markets, the investment bank, has been productive and encouraging. We therefore now intend to progress to development of comprehensive proposals aimed at achieving the transfer in financial year 1995–96. A decision on whether to proceed will not be taken until worked-out proposals are available in the first part of next year. Meanwhile, however, following completion of the initial study, we are proceeding to competitive selection of financial and other advisers to help us prepare for and effect the transfer.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the defence medical services.

  Mr. Soames
  During the "Front Line First" medical study consultation period, my Department received more than 230 responses to our proposals for the future of the defence medical services.

  All of these responses have received careful and sympathetic scrutiny. Understandable local concerns and support have been expressed for fine military facilities with a proud history of service to their civilian communities. No significant new defence-related arguments have, however, emerged, nor have any new suggestions bee made which have caused us to alter our original proposals.

  I can therefore confirm that we shall now move to develop our plans, working closely with the relevant NHS authorities, along the lines indicated in "Front Line First". We shall establish a single tri-service core hospital to provide the future secondary care needs for the armed forces in the United Kingdom. I can conform that we have decided that this facility will be established at the current royal naval hospital Haslar in Gosport. This hospital will be supported by a continuing presence at the Duchess of Kent military hospital at Catterick and by Ministry of Defence medical staff working in three Ministry of Defence hospital units. One of these will be located at the Derriford district general hospital in Plymouth; the remaining two sites will be chosen over the next three months. All secondary care will be managed by a tri-service Defence Agency, which will continue to develop increasingly close links with the NHS, and will be headed by a chief executive reporting through the surgeon general to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff responsible for personal matters.

  The Princess Mary's RAF hospital Akrotiri in Cyprus will also form part of the tri-service secondary care agency. The future of the two service hospitals in Germany will be considered further following the completion of the current market testing programme. We are also examining the case for market testing the defence services medical rehabilitation unit at RAF Headley Court, and shall be examining the need for the RAF's central medical establishment to be in central London and the scope for alternative uses of the Royal Army medical college at Millbank. We shall be bringing dentists from all three services into a single, tri-service agency and subsequently submitting the business to a market test.

  Primary care will be provided by the most cost-effective combination of the NHS, the private health care sector, and MOD military and civilian staff, to the greatest extent consistent with providing peacetime employment for those uniformed personnel required to deploy for operations and war.

  The reorganisation of defence medical services, including the closures of the Cambridge military hospital and the Princess Alexandra's RAF hospital, is intended to be complete by April 1996. Because of this, the closure of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital at Woolwich will be brought forward to the spring of 1995, at which time we expect to transfer the hospital to the NHS although a service presence may remain for some months afterwards. The closure date for the Princess Mary's RAF hospital at Halton has also been brought forward to March 1996.
  305
  Much work needs to be done before the full reorganisation of defence medical services can become effective and we have therefore put in place a team to effect all elements of the implementation process. We shall continue to consult the trade unions on the details of our plans as they unfold.

  Minor War Vessels, Rosyth
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his statement of 14 July,Official Report, columns 1171–2, if he has reached a decision on the future of minor war vessels based at Rosyth.

  Mr. Freeman
  Having given full and careful consideration to the representations made on the proposals promulgated on 14 July, we have decided to proceed with the redeployment of minor war vessels from Rosyth to Faslane and Portsmouth by April 1996 and the change in the role of Rosyth from a minor war vessel operating base to a Royal Navy support establishment within a similar time frame. In the same time scale, the non-operational functions of flag officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland will transfer to Faslane from Pitreavie. We will continue to consult with staff and the trade unions about the detailed implementation of these measures and their implications. My officials will also work closely with the Scottish Office, local authorities and other agencies to enable those areas of the base no longer required by the Department to be redeveloped for alternative economic use. Constructive dialogue between the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Office is already under way with a view to securing co-ordinated disposal strategy for the site aimed at promoting the continuing economic development and diversification of the area.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent research he has commissioned into the possible after effects of inoculations against anthrax, yellow fever, hepatitis, plague, polio and cholera, given singly or together or within a few day of each other to personnel serving in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Soames
  None. All known vaccine interactions are published in standard medical textbooks and the British national formulary. Short-term side-effects—sore arm, malaise—are very common after any vaccination procedure but there is no scientific or medical evidence to suggest that vaccines can interact to produce long-term adverse health effects. Furthermore, it is not unusual, in normal medicine practice, for a number of separate vaccines to be administered at the same time or over a short period.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will issue regimental part I orders to all current service personnel requiring those who served in the Gulf war and who believe they may have suffered ill-effects to report to their medical officer.

  Mr. Soames
  Personnel from all three services who believe that they are suffering from ill health, for whatever reason, have been encouraged to report to their medical officer. The armed forces medical services have already established a medical assessment programme for those who believe their ill health is a result of their Gulf service. The existence of this assessment programme is well known in the services and the issuing of orders is not therefore considered necessary.
  306
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent research he has commissioned into possible birth defects in children born to the families of service personnel who served in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Soames
  We are aware of no scientific or medical evidence to suggest that the incidence of genetic defects among babies born into the families of British Gulf veterans is any higher than that found among the civilian population. Given the lack of evidence, there are no grounds for commissioning independent research.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been commissioned into leishmania tropica infection in service personnel who served in the Gulf war, with particular reference to viscerotropic leishmaniasis.

  Mr. Soames
  Tests for leishmaniasis are routinely performed on United Kingdom armed forces personnel whose service and personal history, symptoms and signs are suggestive of this disease. No case of any species of leishmania has been found in British armed forces personnel who served in the Gulf, and we have not therefore commissioned any additional research into the disease. We are aware, however, that the United States authorities have to date identified 31 cases of leishmaniasis among their personnel who served in the Gulf, including 12 cases of a disseminated disease not previously associated with the species leishmania tropica, which has been labelled viscerotropic leishmaniasis. The armed forces medical services will continue to monitor developments in the United States.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the troops who served in Operation Granby(a) are still serving in the armed forces and (b) have been invalided out since.

  Mr. Soames
  Around 45,0000 service personnel were deployed to the middle east in support of operation Granby. Details of the number still serving are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. According to central medical records, one Royal Navy, 44 Army and three Royal Air Force personnel have, to date, been discharged on medical grounds as a result of injuries or illness sustained as a result of incidents during Operation Granby. All were discharged for recognised medical conditions.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has commissioned into possible nerve end damage, whether permanent or temporary, in service men and women as the result of exposure to various agents during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Soames
  None. Any service man or woman whose medical history, symptoms and signs are suggestive of neurological—including nerve end damage—is thoroughly investigated in accordance with normal clinical practice. None of the 65 individuals so far assessed under the Gulf medical assessment programme have neurological damage, and we therefore see no reason to commission specific research into this matter.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what checks have been carried out to establish whether service personnel with a history of asthma or hay fever may be particularly susceptible to nerve agent pre-treatment set or other products used for their protection during the Gulf War.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence that normal seasonal hay fever sufferers are particularly susceptible to any of
  307
  the protective measures used during Operation Granby. Individuals with a history of asthma could be susceptible to one of the protective measures, NAPS, the active constituent of which is pyridostigmine bromide. The administration of pyridostigmine bromide is not contra-indicated for known asthmatics, but caution is advised because the drug may exacerbate asthma symptoms. However, asthma is generally not compatible with service in the armed forces and potential recruits with a history of this condition would not be accepted for service. Furthermore, those already serving who develop asthma are required to be referred to a service consultant who assesses their suitability to be retained in the services. Those retained would normally serve in a reduced medical category which would preclude operational service.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make available to ex-service personnel who served in the Gulf war their full medical records, including details of all injections and other protective measures given.

  Mr. Soames
  Service medical records are the property of the Department and can be released only to the patient concerned in accordance with the Access to Health Records Act 1990, which came into force on 1 November 1991. Under the provisions of this Act, which is not retrospective, medical records are normally released only to the individual whom they concern if they were compiled after 1 November 1991. For records compiled before this date, however, it has long been my Department's policy to release them on request to a former service person's GP or solicitor where they may be required for the management of a particular case.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent research he has commissioned into the possible after-effects of exposure to a combination of two or more of inoculations against infectious diseases, NAPS tablets, organo-phosphorus pesticides and airborne pollution.

  Mr. Soames
  None. We are aware of no scientific or medical evidence which suggests that the combination of preventative medical procedures and individually non-harmful levels of other substances presents any increased risk to health which would warrant the commissioning of specific research.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf war veterans have presented themselves with illnesses since their return; and how many have, in the judgment of his Department, been suffering from identifiable complaints, whether or not linked to their service in Operation Granby.

  Mr. Soames
  The information is not available in the form requested as no central record is maintained of visits by armed forces personnel to service primary health case facilities, and responsibility for the health of those Gulf veterans who have left the services rests with the national health service. One hundred and eighty-five Gulf war veterans with concerns about their health have, however, come forward at our request for medical assessment by the armed forces medical services. Of these, 65 have so far been examined under the medical assessment programme and all have been found to be suffering from identifiable complaints, none of which are peculiar to service in the Gulf.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the annual budget of the Defence Export Services Organisation in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 22 November,Official Report, column 139.

  Closures
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during each of the last four years the proposed closure of a Royal Navy, Army or Royal Air Force base was made the subject of formal consultation; and in how many cases the proposed closure was subsequently reversed.

  Mr. Soames
  All proposals by my Department which affect civilian staff are subject to formal consultation with trade unions and other interested parties before final decisions are taken. As consultation is undertaken locally for all proposals affecting fewer than 25 staff, central records are not maintained, and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For those cases where records are held centrally, one proposal was altered, and two others are subject to fresh study. In other cases, alternative defence uses were found for some sites.

  Airfields
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's airfields are now surplus to requirements; and what is the timetable for their disposal.

  Mr. Soames
  The following airfields are surplus to requirement and are in disposal or earmarked for disposal:

  Airfields

  Expected disposal timetable

  DRA Bedford (Thurleigh Airfield)

  Completion of sale anticipated June 1995.

  RAF Bentwaters

  Disposal projected for FY 95/96.

  RAF Binbrook

  Disposal projected for FY 95/96.

  RAF Greenham Common

  Sale of airfield anticipated summer 1995.

  Old Sarum Airfield

  Freehold of airfield expected to be sold in February/March 1995.

  St. David's Airfield, Dyfed

  Completion of sale anticipated 31 December 1995.

  RAF Sculthorpe

  Disposal projected for FY 95/96 subject to confirmation of no further Defence use.

  RAF Swinderby

  Disposal projected for FY 95/96 subject to confirmation of no further Defence use.

  RAF Upper Heyford

  No timetable available at present as the method of disposal is still to be decided.

  Wroughton Airfield

  To be transferred to the National Museum of Science & Industry 31 March 1995

  309

  The table below gives details of airfields that have been declared surplus to requirements but which are still in use and/or under consideration for alternative Defence use.

  Airfields

  Status

  RAF Alconbury

  USAF to vacate by September 1995. Disposal projected for FY 96–97.

  RAF Binbrook

  Projected disposal dated FY 96–97.

  RAF Chivenor

  Under consideration for alternative Defence use.

  HMS Daedalus

  Due to close in April 1996. Disposal is projected for FY 96–97.

  DRA Farnborough

  Currently operational but expected to be accepted for disposal in April 1995. The disposal of the airfield is linked to that of the "factory area" which is not expected to become surplus until early 1997.

  RAF Newton

  Under consideration for alternative Defence use.

  RAF Swanton-Morley

  To be released 1995. Disposal projected for FY 96–97.

  RAF Upwood

  USAF Contingency Hospital. Site (minus Clinic) to be handed back to. MOD in September 1995. Disposal projected for FY 96–97 subject to confirmation of no further Defence use.

  RAF West Raynham

  Closed Autumn 1994. Under consideration for alternative Defence use.

  RAF Woodbridge

  Station closed. Under consideration for alternative Defence use.

  Defence Appointments
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total number of approvals given per officer rank in the armed forces since 1984 to take up appointments with companies in the defence industry.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Approvals

  Admiral of the Fleet

  1

  Admiral

  30

  Vice Admiral

  5

  Rear Admiral

  54

  Commodore

  8

  Captain

  88

  Commander

  258

  Lieutenant Commander

  287

  Lieutenant

  89

  Field Marshal

  2

  General

  16

  Lieutenant General

  6

  Major General

  65

  Brigadier

  77

  Colonel

  71

  Lieutenant Colonel

  125

  Major

  159

  Captain

  32

  Lieutenant

  6

  Marshal of the RAF

  1

  Air Chief Marshal

  13

  310

  Approvals

  Air Marshal

  19

  Air Vice-Marshal

  49

  Air Commodore

  51

  Group Captain

  92

  Wing Commander

  187

  Squadron Leader

  174

  Flight Lieutenant

  48

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions since 1979 civil servants in his Department have been asked to draft speeches of a constituency nature for use in a Minister's own constituency.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Ministry of Defence Houses
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence houses are currently vacant in each county of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Houses

  County Antrim

  5

  County Armagh

  3

  County Down

  110

  County Fermanagh

  —

  County Londonderry

  55

  County Tyrone

  8

  Of these houses, all but 18 are either being refurbished or are being held vacant in preparation for the arrival of replacement units in early 1995.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to review the requirements for service residential and social accommodation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Soames
  We keep the requirement for accommodation under continual review in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere.

  Royal Engineering Camp, Antrim
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the requirement for additional accommodation at the Royal Engineers camp in Antrim in the event of other suitable alternative accommodation becoming available in the Antrim area.

  Mr. Soames
  The option of building on another site rather than rebuilding Massereene barracks was investigated, but no suitable alternative was found.

  Gordon Foxley
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reforms his Department has adopted following the Gordon Foxley case.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our investigations into the Gordon Foxley case continue. It is, however, already apparent that
  311
  a number of changes in practice, in areas such as competition and contracting procedures, made since the period in which Foxley was active had reduced the risk of a recurrence. We have also taken steps to reduce the time for which individuals serve in commercially sensitive posts. Further changes will be considered in the light of the progress of our investigation.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions his Department has drawn from the Gordon Foxley case.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) of 23 November,Official Report, column 146–47.

  Eurocorps
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to British membership of the Eurocorps.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans for the United Kingdom to join the Eurocorps.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his French and German counterparts concerning the Eurocorps.

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no recent substantive discussions with France and Germany on the Eurocorps, although in the course of normal bilateral exchanges French and German Ministers generally inform their UK opposite numbers of significant developments concerning the corps.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft have been lost in accidents in each of the last five years; and what has been the total cost of these accidents.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  1990—5

  1991—4

  1992—0

  1993—1

  1994—6

  No replacement costs arise for these aircraft since there is an attrition reserve from which aircraft are taken to replace those lost. Records are not maintained centrally of other costs that may arise from an accident, such as aircraft salvage or third party claims.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the safety records of Tornado F3s and GR1s.

  Mr. Soames
  The safety of aircraft in service is monitored continually by the RAF. The safety record of the Tornado compares favourably with other fast-jet types operated in a similar environment. Overall, the Tornado has had a low loss rate since it entered service.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department has taken to remedy any technical problems which have caused Tornado accidents in the past five years.

  Mr. Soames
  One of the completed RAF boards of inquiry into Tornado accidents in the past five years has identified a technical problem as the cause. As a result of 312
  the accident on 30 April 1990 in Canada, modifications were made to the Tornado's RB 199 engine to improve fire protection.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF's inspectorate of flight safety report into Tornado crashes will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF inspectorate of flight safety has not been tasked to produce a specific report on Tornado crashes. All RAF aircraft accidents are subject to an RAF board of inquiry, which conducts a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances of each accident. Summaries of boards of inquiry findings are placed in the Library of the House. The safety of all RAF aircraft types are, however, kept under constant review.

  LSD Experiments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the LSD experiments called Moneybags carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years the Moneybags experiments were conducted; how many service volunteers were tested under the Moneybags experiments; what were the lowest and highest doses administered to service volunteers during the Moneybags experiments; what were these volunteers required to do under these Moneybags experiments; how many animals were tested under the Moneybags experiments and what type of animals were used; what was the conclusion of the Moneybags experiments; and with which countries the results of these experiments were shared.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down to consider under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 8 December 1994:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about work carried out with LSD at Porton Down known as Moneybags has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent.

  3. Moneybags was one in a series of studies carried out in the 1960s to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD. The aim of Moneybags was to determine how this psychotomimetic drug affected the military performance of men under simulated operational conditions. Some 20 Service Volunteers participated but not all were given LSD; 4 were screened out as being unsuitable to receive LSD. Of the others, some received no LSD whilst the lowest and highest doses were 75 and 200 vg respectively. This was given orally in water. No animals were involved.

  4. Moneybags was designed to reproduce a military exercise of an internal security nature, the scenario being that an "enemy" force had sought refuge on the Porton Down range. The volunteers were tasked to clear the relevant area and to capture prisoners and stores from the "enemy".

  5. Moneybags showed that the effects of LSD were manifest within 10 minutes and within 15 minutes the efficiency of the volunteer unit was impaired. After 70 minutes the levels of

  313
  incapacitation and the breakdown of communication between sections of the unit was such that all activity was terminated. Two days after their exposure to LSD the volunteer unit showed no ill effects and a repeat of the exercise, in which an inactive placebo was given, was perfectly executed.

  6. It was concluded that men given a drug such as LSD would be incapable of effective military action. However, the drug had been administered orally and it as far from clear whether it could be disseminated effectively as an aerosol and thus whether it would present a significant battlefield hazard.

  7. The results from Moneybags formed part of the technology database held by the Establishment in the area of evaluation of the potential hazard to Service personnel from possible chemical warfare agents. This information was drawn upon during the 1960s and 1970s in the agreements with our NATO allies to exchange information and so promote collaboration and cooperation in areas such as research and development in chemical and biological defence. The agreements with the United States at that time included:

  a. The Technical Cooperation Programme involving UK, US, Canada and Australia which had subsumed the earlier trilateral UK/US/Canada meetings.

  b. America, British, Canadian and Australian Armies (ABCA) agreement Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) on NBC defence.

  c. The NATO Panel VII on chemical and biological defence.

  Hercules Fleet
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies have put in bids to refurbish the present Hercules fleet; and if he will now instigate a competition for this work.

  Mr. Freeman
  Competitive bids for refurbishment of the Hercules fleet will be sought formally if the Government decide, on the basis of the current detailed assessment, that there is an operational and value for money case in favour of pursuing refurbishment.

  Military Bases
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the present number of(a) Navy, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Army military bases within the United Kingdom.

  Mr Soames
  Data held on the defence property list does not differentiate between minor sites and major locations. The total number of facilities attributed to single services are as follows:

  (a) NAVY = 223

  (b) RAF = 276

  (c) ARMY = 447

  These figures include facilities such as training areas and ranges, but exclude facilities such as married quarters, career information offices, and facilities for the reserve forces.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to propose the complete demilitarisation of the safe areas in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the United Nations Secretary-General's report of 1 December to the Security Council on safe areas. The report includes proposals on 314
  the demilitarisation of the safe areas. It is now being studied by the Security Council.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the UN-declared safe areas are occupied by armed Bosnian Muslim troops; and what are the reasons for their presence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Bosnian Government troops are present in all the safe areas in Bosnia: Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Srebrenica and Bihac.

  The Security Council resolutions relating to the designation of safe areas—819, 824 and 836—do not require that Bosnian Government troops be withdrawn from these areas.

  Management Information System
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce a full management information system encompassing the activities of his staff in London and overseas.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Work is in hand to replace the Foreign Office's present management information system with a new financial and management accounting system from 1 April 1996. It will be compatible with the Department's integrated manpower and personnel system and will provide a comprehensive system covering all its activities at home and overseas.

  The ODA has an office-wide system providing management information for all staff, including those overseas, responsible for managing expenditure. This system came into operation in April 1987.

  Embassy Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, columns 165–66, what are the reasons for the size of his Department's staff establishment in Ankara.

  Mr. David Davis
  The staffing level of diplomatic service posts overseas is determined by the Foreign Office's political and economic objectives, which are published in the departmental report for 1994. Staffing and resource levels at individual posts reflect the depth of bilateral relations, the requirements of British exporters, the growing number of British citizens travelling abroad; and United Kingdom immigration, aid and domestic policies.

  EU Council
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 949–52, what factors have led to the non-availability of the agenda of the Council of the European Union in Essen.

  Mr. David Davis
  There are no formal agendas for European Councils although the President of the Council circulates his suggested themes for discussion a few days in advance. The likely subjects for discussion were set out in the memorandum by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which was sent to the Committee on 24 November.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours System
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) peerages and (b) knighthoods have been awarded since May 1979 to (i) local authority members, (ii) civil servants, (iii) business men, (iv) business women, (v) Conservative hon. Members, (vi) ex-Conservative hon. Members, (vii) Liberal hon. Members, (viii) ex-Liberal hon. Members, (ix) Social Democrat party hon. Members, (x) ex-Social Democrat party Members, (xi) Labour hon. Members and (xii) ex-Labour hon. Members.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Department of Trade and Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations led to the current ministerial staffing of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministerial staffing levels are determined according to the responsibilities of each Department.

  Engagements
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the purposes of his engagements today.

  The Prime Minister
  To carry out my duties and responsibilities as Prime Minister.

  Lockheed
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from the general public in connection with the Hercules C-130 replacement; how many of these supported Lockheed; and how many have asked for the decision to be delayed until the future large aircraft feasibility study has been completed.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received numerous representations on this subject.

ENVIRONMENT

  Green Belt Land
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what releases of green belt land over 100 hectares in size have been agreed to in structure or unitary plans since 1986.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No releases of green belt land over 100 hectares in size have been agreed to in the north-east in structure or unitary plans since 1986. Information is not available nationally, except at disproportionate cost.

  Research that the Government published last year showed that boundary alterations in development plans and affected less than 0.3 per cent. of green belts over the last eight years in the areas studied.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions since 1987 when he or his predecessors have called in a development plan 316
  or issued a holding direction to prevent the release of areas of green belt land over 100 hectares in size.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Three article 14 directions have been made on green belt sites in excess of 100 hectares in the north-east since 1987. Information on holding directions is not available nationally, except at disproportionate cost. No development plans have ever been called in on green belt grounds.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is made in guidance or draft guidance on green belts for the release of green belt land to halt out migration from local authority areas.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planning policy guidance note 2 on green belts states:"Once the general extent of a green belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration is proposed the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within the urban areas contained by and beyond the green belt. Similarly, detailed green belt boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved development plans should be altered only exceptionally."

  A draft revision of PPG2, which was issued for consultation earlier this year, maintained the point that "exceptional circumstances" were required to justify boundary changes. A final version has not yet been published.

  Nickel and Vanadium Emissions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has carried out into the health effects of nickel and vanadium emitted from large combustion plants; what conclusions have been reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Environment has not carried out any research into the health effects of nickel and vanadium. The World Health Organisation has published an air quality guideline for vanadium of 1 vg/m3 daily average. The data available for the United Kingdom suggest that this is unlikely to be exceeded in urban areas.

  The WHO has not produced an air quality guideline for nickel. Advice from the Department of Health is that there is no reason to suppose that ambient levels of nickel pose a significant threat to health in the United Kingdom.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the United Kingdom is making towards meeting its target of reducing total annual carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 30 November 1994,Official Report, column 1200.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify the amount and source of the extra funds for the single regeneration budget outlined in the latest Budget; and whether those extra funds will be available for all local authorities to compete for.

  Mr. Curry
  An extra £25 million has been added, for each of the three years 1995–96 to 1997–98, to the resources for projects successful in the first bidding round
  317
  of the single regeneration budget. This brings the amount available for the 201 successful bids announced on 6 December to £125 million in 1995–96 and to £225 million in both 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  A second bidding round will be launched next year and will build up to a full spend of £200 million in 1997–98, with £40 million available in 1996–97 for early funding of successful projects.

  Resources for these new SRB projects are being released from the programmes which were brought together to form the SRB, as their existing commitments come to an end.

  Detailed guidance for the second round will be issued next spring. As in round 1, local authorities, training and enterprise councils and private and voluntary sector interests will be encouraged to form partnerships and put forward comprehensive bids that meet local regeneration needs and priorities.

  Departmental Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will supply further figures to those set out at tables A and B of page 60 of the Department of Environment's annual report 1994 so as to bring those figures up to date to expenditure plans for the year 1997–98.

  Approved Estate Management Boards in England as at 1 April 1994

  Region

  Authority

  EMB

  Units

  London

  Camden

  Maiden Lane

  479

  London

  Islington

  Hornsey Lane

  173

  London

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lancaster West

  829

  London

  Tower Hamlets

  Samuda

  505

  North East

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  South Bank

  865

  North West

  Blackburn

  Shadsworth

  n/a

  North West

  Burnley

  West End Estates

  1,200

  North West

  Manchester

  Hollin

  1,200

  North West

  Oldham

  Higginshaw Village

  339

  North West

  Oldham

  Holts Village

  925

  North West

  Rochdale

  Freehold

  n/a

  North West

  Rossendale

  Bacup and Stacksteads

  1,184

  North West

  Rossendale

  Haslingden

  1,461

  North West

  Wanington

  Blackbrook

  809

  North West

  West Lancashire

  Digmoor

  n/a

  North West

  West Lancashire

  Tanhouse

  1,063

  North West

  West Lancashire

  Whitworth

  827

  North West

  Wyre

  West View

  843

  South West

  Plymouth

  Pembroke Street

  153

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Bloomsbury

  n/a

  West Midlands

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Chell Heath

  n/a

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  Kirklees

  Staincliffe

  628

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  Leeds

  Belle Isle North

  n/a

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  Leeds

  Halton Moor

  1,319

  Note:

  n/a: information not held centrally.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current financial provision made for estate management boards; and what is that planned for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There is no separate provision for funding development of estate management boards.
  318
  Mr. Curry
  The updated figures for planned urban and regeneration expenditure to 1997–98, including the single regeneration budget, are given in the table:

  Urban and regeneration expenditure

  1995–96 plans

  1996–97 plans

  1997–98 plans

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Housing Action Trusts

  90.0

  90.0

  90.0

  Urban Development Corporations/DLR

  238.7

  214.7

  209.7

  English Partnerships (URA)

  211.6

  221.7

  221.7

  Other SRB

  791.2

  797.8

  802.8

  Total SRB

  1,331.5

  1,324.2

  1,324.2

  Other Urban

  2.3

  1.4

  1.3

  SRB and Urban Total

  1,333.8

  1,325.6

  1,325.5

  Updated figures for outturn expenditure in 1993–94 and estimated outturn in 1994–95 will be given in the Department's 1995 Annual Report.

  Estate Management Boards
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region, area and title those estate management boards presently in operation giving their date of commencement and the number of residents and homes within their areas.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information available to the Department on estate management boards approved by the Secretary of State before 1 April 1994 is as follows:

  They are funded from the section 16 programme, for which the current provision for 1994–95 is £6.4 million. Planned provision for 1995–96 and 1996–97 is £6 million for each year.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual cost to public
  319
  funds of each of the estate management boards by region, area and title since their commencement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information on the annual cost of individual estate management boards which have entered into a management agreement with a local authority is not held centrally.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who owns the freehold of County hall, London SE1.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The London residuary body.

  Selector Europe
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contracts have been awarded by his Department or organisations responsible to it to Selector Europe since 1 January 1990; and what has been the value of the contracts.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 2 December 1994]: No contracts have been awarded to Selector Europe by the Department or its executive agencies during the period in question.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Accounts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will publish details of the companies and undertakings owned by the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Alison
  In common with normal practice, and as required by the Companies Act 1985, the commissioners give the names of their significant subsidiary undertakings, and their proportionate interest in each, in the financial statements which form part of their published annual report and accounts. This report is transmitted to the Home Secretary, distributed to other interested persons and is freely available to the public.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education Lecturers
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the salary of higher education lecturers at each salary grade in each year since 1979 at current prices and as a percentage of average earnings.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Opted-out Schools
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which London schools have opted out of national wage negotiations.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The London Oratory school is the only grant-maintained school for which an order has been made exempting the school from sections 2(6) and 2(7) of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 so that it can put its own pay scales and conditions of service in place.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what comparative assessment she has made of provision of the proportion of children in publicly funded pre-school education in the United Kingdom and in each other EU country.

  Mr. Forth
  The United Kingdom is one of only three countries in the European Union where universal state education starts at the age of five; elsewhere, it is at the age of six or seven. Although data exist for participation rates in most of the countries of the European Union, they do not compare like with like because they do not, for example, clearly distinguish between education and child care, or take account of whether parents are required to contribute towards the cost.

  The Secretary of State has set up a task force to plan the implementation of the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, good quality pre-school places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish them to take up. Comparative assessment of international provision is part of their work.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines he has issued to museums, galleries, theatres, and other artistic venues in receipt of public funds as to expected practice in relation to access for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced on 24 November a package of measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people, including a right of access to goods and services. This includes provisions for the removal of physical and communication barriers.

  It has not been my Department's role to issue guidelines. However, most of my Department's sponsored bodies have policies on facilities for people with disabilities and some of them issue guidelines. In addition, when giving directions under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, my predecessor reminded those bodies responsible for the distribution of proceeds from the lottery that those who are disadvantaged, including people with disabilities, should be able to benefit from lottery funds in the same ways as others in the community, and that it was important that access to facilities which receive lottery funding should be as wide as possible.

  Libraries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, if he will list the five local authorities which spend(a) most and (b) least per head

  Name

  Offences on the warrants

  Date first sent

  Outcome

  McCall, Kenneth

  [Two warrants] Two separate warrants for theft.

  25 July 1991

  Extradited to the Republic of Ireland on 2 March 1994 following difficulties in locating the subject of the warrants and after resolution of various queries.

  Brady, Patrick

  [Four warrants] Two separate warrants for having possession of illegal drugs with intent to supply.

  4 October 1991

  Extradited to Republic of Ireland on 10 May 1994 after resolution of outstanding criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland and various queries, and following difficulties in locating the subject of the warrants.

  Greer, John McGregor

  Two separate warrants for unlawful importation of drugs.[22 warrants] Possession of articles with intent to rob. Entering a building as a trespasser with intent to steal. Escape from lawful custody. Nine separate warrants for unlawful assault. Ten separate warrants for handling stolen goods.

  29 April 1993

  Extradited to the Republic of Ireland on 17 July 1993 after his release from prison in Northern Ireland.

  Conway, Thomas Desmond

  [Five warrants] Two warrants for unlawful and malicious infliction of grievous -bodily harm. Two warrants for assault occasioning a action bodily harm. Assault on police officers.

  20 January 1994

  Extradited to the Republic of Ireland on 27 January 1994

  Morgan, Terence Anthony

  [One warrant] Unlawful possession of drugs.

  9 July 1994

  Extradited to the Republic of Ireland on 29 July 1994

  322
  of population on library book provision; for the year 1992–93, together with the sums they spent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 November 1994, c. 606.]: I regret to inform the House that the answer given was incorrect. The correct reply is as follows:

  The five local authorities in England spending the most per head of population on library book provision in 1992–93 were—source CIPFA:
  City of London, £129.54; Westminster, £4.34; Kensington and Chelsea, £3.75; Hounslow, £3.21 and Sutton, £3.20.

  The five spending least were:
  Sheffield, £0.89; Barnsley, £0.87; Hillingdon, £0.78; Wakefield, £0.72, and Brent £0.34.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Extradition
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of extradition warrants served in the last three years by the authorities in the Irish Republic for non-terrorist offences against persons living in Northern Ireland; and what has been(a) the outcome, (b) the time taken to effect each extradition and (c) the difficulties which required any application to be referred specifically to the Attorney General.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is listed in the schedule, with the exception of that relating to persons for whom warrants have been issued but who have not yet been arrested by the RUC. The Attorney-General is not directly concerned with applications for extradition from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. No application was referred to him.
  323

  Name

  Offences on the warrants

  Date first sent

  Outcome

  McHugh, Patrick

  [Two warrants] Robbery. Possession of an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence.

  20 September 1994

  Extradited to the Republic of Ireland on 26 October 1994

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those warrants, stating persons and offences concerned, which were sent by the RUC to the Irish Republic in connection with extradition for non-terrorist offences during the past three years; and what has been(a) the outcome, (b) the time taken to effect each extradition and (c) the difficulties which required

  Name

  Offences on the warrants

  Date sent

  Outcome

  Moran, James Joseph

  [Two warrants sent] Murder contrary to Common Law. Conspiracy to murder.

  17 February 1993

  Awaiting High Court Appeal in Dublin.

  Quigley, Philip Andrew

  [One warrant sent] Murder contrary to Common Law.

  17 February 1993

  Awaiting High Court Appeal in Dublin.

  Larkin, Daniel Francis

  [One warrant sent] Murder contrary to Common Law.

  17 February 1993

  Awaiting judgment of the Supreme court in Dublin.

  Smyth, John Gerard Brendan

  [Nine warrants sent] Eight separate warrants alleging indecent assault against male persons.

  29 April 1993

  Warrants not backed. Smyth voluntarily returned to Northern Ireland January 1994.

  One warrant alleging indecent assault against a female

  McNamee, William Patrick

  [One warrant] Rape

  14 January 1994

  Extradited to Northern Ireland 18 January 1994.

  Walsh, Christopher Patrick

  [Four warrants] Four separate warrants for handling stolen goods

  10 February 1994

  Awaiting High Court Appeal in Dublin.

  Donnell, James Edward

  [Two warrants] Theft. Robbery.

  24 February 1994

  Extradited to Northern Ireland 14 March 1994

  Stewart, Samuel Mervyn Noel

  [One warrant] Rape.

  26 May 1994

  Extradited to Northern Ireland 27 May 1994.

  Bell, Garnet Seabrooke

  [Eight warrants] Three separate warrants for attempted murder. Three separate warrants for unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm. Two separate warrants for criminal damage.

  21 June 1994

  Extradited to Northern Ireland 18 August 1994.

  Valliday, Stephen Charles

  [Two warrants] Murder, Unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm.

  7 July 1994

  Extradited to Northern Ireland 8 September 1994.

  Wilson, John Robert Henry

  [One warrant] Reckless driving, causing grievous bodily harm.

  1 September 1994

  Extradited to Northern Ireland 17 October 1994.

  Friel, Patrick Martin

  [Three warrants] Three separate warrants for indecent assault on a female

  13 October 1994

  Arrested 16 November 1994 case presently before the District Court in Dublin.

  Staffing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average qualified nurse to patient ratio in each of the last five years by region.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  Qualified Hospital Nurse: Patient Ratio (Whole-time Equivalent)

  Ratio

  1990–91

  1:24.8

  1991–92

  1:25.5

  324
  any application to be specifically referred to the Irish Republic's Attorney-General.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is listed with the exception of that relating to those persons for whom warrants have been issued, but who have not yet been arrested. All warrants sent by the RUC to the Garda Siochana are referred to the Irish Attorney-General's office as a matter of course.

  Qualified Hospital Nurse: Patient Ratio (Whole-time Equivalent)

  Ratio

  1992–93

  1:26.4

  1993–94

  1:29.3

  Notes:

  Information prior to 1990, is unavailable.

  The patient ratio was calculated using deaths and discharges and excludes day cases, regular day/night admissions and outpatients.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of redundancies among national health service staff(a) by grade and (b) by reason for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the costs of redundancy payments to staff in each of the last five years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many operating theatre sessions have been cancelled in each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Moss
  The number of scheduled operating theatre sessions cancelled in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years are set out in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  3,022

  1990–91

  3,257

  1991–92

  3,021

  1992–93

  2,445

  1993–94

  1,732

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by name the start-up costs for each national health service trust hospital, by region.

  Mr. Moss
  Since regional health authorities do not exist in Northern Ireland, it is not possible to present the information exactly as requested. Prior to their operational dates, the following contributions were made towards the cost of establishing health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland.

  Establishment costs of HSS trusts in Northern Ireland

  £

  Operational date 1 April 1994

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital Trust

  218,000

  Belfast City Hospital Trust

  188,000

  Green Park Trust

  192,000

  Ulster North Down and Ards Hospitals Trust

  191,000

  Craigavon Area Hospital Trust

  205,000

  Eastern Ambulance Service Trust

  215,000

  Operational Date 1 April 1994

  North Down and Ards Community Trust

  211,000

  North and West Belfast Trust

  223,000

  South and East Belfast Trust

  204,000

  Down Lisburn Trust

  192,000

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  185,000

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust

  185,000

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital Trust (includes further development costs following deferral of first application)

  227,000

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fishing boats are being decommissioned in each of the registered ports in Northern Ireland; and what is the total estimated cost.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of fishing vessels accepted for decommissioning under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 at Northern Ireland ports is as follows:

  Ardglass: 2

  Donaghadee: 1

  Kilkeel: 5

  Portavogie: 5

  The total cost of decommissioning the 13 vessels is anticipated to be £890,680.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on the Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.uk" or any specific departmental server.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In line with the open government code of practice published in April 1994, the Northern Ireland civil service has plans in the next year, in liaison with the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, the Government centre for information systems, to examine the potential of using Internet as an effective medium to make information available to the public domain. When this exercise is completed, the NICS will address the issue of what information it would be appropriate to make available. The NICS has already registered Internet addresses with the relevant authority in order to facilitate future use.

  Emergency Provisions Act (Review)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has yet received the report of Mr. J. J. Rowe's fundamental review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received the report and am giving it careful consideration.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  3 Dean's Yard
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee for what reasons building works were carried out in 3 Dean's yard outside the recess; and what representations he has received from hon. Members and their staff about illnesses caused by these works.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  There was an obligation under the terms of the lease on 3 Dean's yard, to carry out repairs this year, and the opportunity was taken to make some improvements. The internal work to Members' and secretaries' offices was completed during the recess and the remainder of the project to upgrade the roof and
  327
  external areas is on schedule to finish by Christmas. It was not possible to complete both internal and external works during the recess period. No representations other than those made by the hon. Member have been received on this matter from hon. Members or their staff.

  Great Clock
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans there are to modernise the lighting behind the four faces of the Great Clock; how long the work will take; and what resulting change he expects in the annual cost.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  It is planned to replace the existing lighting behind the four faces of the Great Clock with energy-saving lamps. The lighting on one face of the clock at a time will be shut down and converted. The work will be completed by the beginning of February. The energy savings resulting from this work will amount to some £1,000 per annum. All four faces of the clock will be illuminated on New Year's eve.

TREASURY

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Campbell Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what occasions since 1979 civil servants in his Department have been asked to draft speeches of a constituency nature for use in a Minister's own constituency.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. Civil servants may provide briefing of a factual nature for Ministers on matters relating to their own Departments. In addition, Ministers in preparing for a constituency speech can draw on material produced by their Department during the normal course of business.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional contributions that the United Kingdom will have to make to the EC as a result of the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power; and how much the United Kingdom contributions will increase due to the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power under(a) the third resource and (b) the fourth resource.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The introduction of VAT on fuel and power has no effect on the VAT base which is used to calculate our third resource contributions since this is harmonised across member states. There may be a small effect on gross national product at market prices, but that depends on what alternative policies would have been followed instead.

  In any case, there would be no overall effect on the size of our contribution to the EC budget since, after abatement, our gross contribution is the same as it would have been under the pre-1988 Community financing system—before the introduction of the GNP resource. Changes in our GNP base, which are not mirrored in our harmonised VAT base, do not affect the size of our contribution after abatement.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the savings from taxing child benefit as part of the women's income if taxed at the rates of 20 per cent., 25 per cent., 30 per cent., 35 per cent., 40 per cent. and 60 per cent.

  Sir George Young
  This would depend on how such a tax was to be calculated, and, in particular, on the relationship between the current marginal tax rate on the women's income and the rates specified by the hon. Member.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the cost of the main personal and non-personal tax allowances and the revenue saved from restricting them to the rates of(a) 25 per cent., (b) 20 per cent. and (c) 15 per cent.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates for 1995–96 based on information about individuals on Inland Revenue records in 1992–93 projected in line with the forecast published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1995–96 are given. These costs exclude the value of personal allowances to some individuals whose income is below the tax threshold. No estimates for restricting the married couple's and related allowances are shown since these are given at 15 per cent. in 1995–96.

  £ billion

  Personal allowance1

  Married couple's and related allowances2

  Total revenue cost

  27.7

  3.13

  Yield from restricting allowances

  a) to the basic rate

  1.6

  not applicable

  b) to 20 per cent.

  5.9

  not applicable

  c) to 15 per cent.

  10.9

  not applicable

  1 Including the age-related personal allowance

  2 Including the age-related married couple's allowance, the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance

  3 The costs assume that the personal allowance remains in place. If the personal allowance were abolished, the cost of the married couple's and related allowance would be substantially greater.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of including BNFL within the public sector borrowing requirement on BNFL's ability to raise capital and on the manner in which such capital is invested.

  Mr. Aitken
  No such estimate has been made. BNFL's external financing requirements will be subject to annual discussions between the company and the Government. BNFLs' inclusion on the PSBR statistics should not affect decisions on the allocation of funds to capital projects.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that, following BNFL's inclusion within the public sector borrowing requirement, its payments to the Treasury will not be increased to a higher level than its dividend payments of recent years.
  329
  Mr. Aitken
  BNFL's dividend payments are related to the company's profitability, according to a formula agreed between BNFL and the Government. There are no plans to change this formula.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whom he consulted before the decision was made to include BNFL within the public service borrowing requirements; what advice they gave; and on what basis the decision was made.

  Mr. Aitken
  The decision to include BNFL within public sector statistics and hence score its borrowing against the PSBR was taken by the director of the Central Statistical Office, who is responsible, within the framework of international agreement and conventions, for the definitions and methodology of statistics covered by the CSO.

  "Financial Statement and Budget Report"
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for the accounting adjustments of £9.5 billion, £10.7 billion, £12.5 billion and £12.7 billion in public spending for 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 shown in table 1.5 the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1995–96.

  Mr. Aitken
  The accounting adjustments include various items within general Government expenditure but outside the control total—other than central Government debt interest and cyclical social security, which are shown separately. The larger items are non-trading capital consumption, refunds of VAT, teachers' and NHS pensions increase payments, the difference between civil service and armed forces pensions payments and accruing superannuation liability charges, the element of NHS trusts' charges to health authorities which goes to remunerate debt to the Exchequer, and the spending of the proceeds of the national lottery.

  The net market and overseas borrowing of nationalised industries and other public corporations is, on the other hand, in the control total but outside GGE such that net repayments add to the magnitude of the accounting adjustments. Debt interest paid from local authorities to central Government reduces the accounting adjustments. This is removed to avoid double counting between local government debt interest payments—which are shown inside local authority expenditure—and central Government debt interest. Fuller details of the national accounting adjustments will appear in the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", along the lines of appendix B of last year's supplement—Cm 2519.

  Foreign Exchange
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of a fall in the rate of foreign exchange; and what is his policy on whether the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

  Mr. Nelson
  Movements in the exchange rate are considered as part of the general assessment of monetary conditions in setting monetary policy. The Government recognise the value of a stable exchange rate, but do not have a target rate for sterling.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published; and if he will make available to hon. Members the customary notes on the Bill's clauses.

  Sir George Young
  The Finance Bill will be published on Wednesday 4 January 1995. The notes on the Bill's clauses will be placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House that day. In addition, the Treasury will be making the notes available to the public.

  Anti-smuggling Staff
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many front-line anti-smuggling staff are currently deployed at each port on the south coast.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: The numbers of front-line anti-smuggling staff currently deployed are as follows:

  Number

  Ramsgate

  29

  Dover

  235

  Southampton

  88

  Portsmouth

  88

  Newhaven

  49

  Poole

  53

  Plymouth

  81

  Value Added Tax, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increase in the amount of VAT which will remain uncollected as a result of the proposed reduction in Customs and Excise staff in the area covered by the Southampton local VAT office.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The recently announced reductions in staff result from a package of measures designed to improve overall departmental efficiency and are not expected to increase the amount of uncollected VAT.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the current amount of uncollected VAT arrears in the area covered by the Southampton Customs and Excise office;

  (2) what was the total amount of uncollected VAT debt owing from businesses covered by the Southampton local VAT office area that was written off from each year since 1983;

  (3) what is his estimate of the total number of Customs and Excise officers engaged in VAT inspections in the area covered by the Southampton Customs and Excise office in each year since restructuring of local VAT office boundaries, and in each of the forthcoming two years;

  (4) what is his estimate of the total number of VAT inspections carried out in the area covered by the Southampton Customs and Excise office in each six-months period since restructuring of local VAT office boundaries, and in each of the next four six-month periods;

  (5) what is his estimate of the amount of uncollected VAT outstanding at (a) the end of the current financial year and (b) the end of the financial year 1995–96 in the

  331
  area covered by the Southampton Customs and Excise office;

  (6) what was the total amount of uncollected VAT debt owing from businesses covered by the Southampton local VAT office area written off from each year since 1983;

  (7) what is his estimate of the current amount of uncollected VAT arrears in the area covered by the Southampton Customs and Excise office;

  (8) how many VAT inspections were carried out in the area covered by the Southampton Customs and Excise Office in each six-month period since restructuring of local VAT office boundaries, and in each of the next four six-month periods;

  (9) what is his estimate of the total number of Customs and Excise officers engaged in VAT inspections in the area covered by the Southampton Customs and Excise office in each year since restructuring of local VAT office boundaries, and in each of the forthcoming two years;

  (10) what is his estimate of the total amount of uncollected VAT debt owing from business covered by the Southampton local VAT office that will be written off for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 7 December]: For the years to March 1993 and March 1994, Southampton local VAT office assigned 43 and 45 officers respectively to VAT visiting duties. For the year to March 1995, Southampton LVO plans to assign 46 officers to such duties. Planning figures are not available for the year to March 1996.

  Using those staff the number of visits carried out in each six month period were:

  Number

  April 92–September 92

  1,940

  October 92–March 93

  2,022

  April 93–September 93

  1,691

  October 93–March 94

  1,978

  April 94–October 94

  1,876

  October 94–March 95

  12,127

  1 number of visits planned.

  Planning figures are not available for periods beyond March 1995. The number of visits is not, of itself, an indicator of the efficacy of the visiting programme as businesses are selected in accordance with their risk profile which may vary from year to year.

  In October 1994, the outstanding local VAT debt of registered businesses, within the Southampton LVO area, was £7.3 million.

  For the year ending March 1995, Southampton LVO estimates the debt on hand will be some £6.5 million. Planning figures are not available for 1995–96.

  Because of the restructuring of local VAT office boundaries and other operational changes, figures for VAT debt written off are not available for die whole period requested. For the years to March 1993 and March 1994, Southampton LVO wrote off £1.1 million and £2.1 million of debt respectively.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he gave to accepting lower tenders received for the management of Buckley Hall prison than that he accepted; and what was the gap between the tender accepted and the lowest one made.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 8 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the letting of the contract for Buckley Hall.
  The Evaluation Panel considered a number of factors when assessing all bids. These included how well the tenderers met the requirements of the invitation to tender; the level of realism and innovation in the bid; the quality of the programmes offered; security; staffing levels; deliverability and implementation; the Panel's confidence in the management teams and the corporate approach; and value for money. The Prisons Board then considered and decided to accept the recommendation of the Evaluation Panel that the contract be awarded to Group 4.
  Over the five years of the contract the lowest bid was approximately £5 million or 15% less than Group 4's bid. The Evaluation Panel considered that the proposals in the lowest bid lacked substance and was not satisfied that the bidder was capable of implementing its proposals.
  In the opinion of the Evaluation Panel and the Prisons Board, Group 4's bid offered the best combination of quality and price, as well as confidence in delivery, thus providing the taxpayer with the best overall value for money.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries of prisoners held at Doncaster prison there have been since the present private management contract began;

  (2) what inspections of Doncaster prison by Home Office staff have taken place since the contract with Premia Prison Services began; and when the contract will next be reconsidered;

  (3) if he will hold an independent inquiry into the death of Lee Bowen, held in Doncaster prison;

  (4) what were the numbers of (a) inmates and (b) staff at Doncaster prison on 1 November.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 8 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Doncaster prison.
  Since the prison opened on 20 June this year, two prisoners held there have died. Eleven prisoners have suffered injuries which required immediate transfer to hospital. These include acts of deliberate self harm and drug related incidents, as well as assaults by other prisoners.
  An inquest into the death of Lee Bowen will be held shortly. It would be wrong for me to comment further until the inquest is

  333
  complete, but I will write to you again after the inquest's findings are known.
  On 1 November there were 452 staff and 740 prisoners at the prison.
  The prison is subject to continuous inspection by the on-site controller, a senior prison governor, who ensures that the contractual obligations set for Premier Prison Services are met. A Prison Service area manager recently also spent some time at the prison to monitor the operation of the prison. Visits to the prison have been carried out at regular intervals by other Prison Service personnel, including the area manager. As for all prisons, there is a Board of Visitors whose independent members visit prison regularly. The Prison will also be subject to inspection by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons.
  The contract for Doncaster is next due for review in June 1999.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what appeals procedure exists for those individuals who believe they have been unfairly excluded from working in the Prison Service;

  (2) if he will make a statement of his policy on employing at prisons individuals with criminal records incurred as minors;

  (3) whether a higher level of screening is applied to permanent Prison Service staff rather than the staff of contractors and agencies working within prisons; and what are the reasons for this;

  (4) if he will list the convictions which disqualify individuals from working in prisons.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 8 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about recruitment to the Prison Service.
  The Prison Service is exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 for spent convictions. Candidates for employment in prisons must declare all offences.
  There is no definitive list of convictions which disqualify individuals. Where candidates have criminal records, including records as minors, each case is treated on its merits according to the nature of the record and the type of post for which a candidate is applying. For prison officers, establishments are advised that any applicant who has committed a serious crime or served a period of detention should be rejected.
  Where they believe they have been unfairly excluded, candidates for employment in the Prison Service may appeal in writing. In line with Civil Service policy, specific reasons for rejection are not normally divulged, except where basic eligibility criteria have not been met.
  Where the staff of contractors and agencies working within prisons are employed on a regular basis or for a long period they are subject to the same level of screening as permanent prison staff. Those employed for a short period are still subject to criminal record checks and are escorted within the prison.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the number of employees at Blakenhurst prison who have a criminal record;
  334
  (2) what inquiries are made about the criminal records of staff employed at Blakenhurst prison (a) on permanent contracts and (b) as temporary employees of subcontractors.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Peter Luff dated 8 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about security checks on staff at Blakenhurst prison.
  All people who work at contracted prisons and for the contracted court escort service are subject to routine enquiries about their suitability to work with prisoners. These enquiries are similar to those made in relation to applicants for Prison Service employment.
  Candidates who apply for employment, either in the public or the private sector of the Prison Service, in custodial duties are exempted from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Rehabilitation Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and therefore convictions ordinarily regarded as "spent" are taken into account.
  Security audits are carried out at regular intervals for all contracted prisons and court escort services to ensure all staff have undergone such clearance. The last audit at Blakenhurst did not reveal any employees with a criminal record.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reinstate Mr. Tony Urosevic to his position as a nurse at Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 8 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Mr. Tony Urosevic.
  As you know from Michael Forsyth's letter to you of 2 September, the Prison Service reviewed Mr. Urosevic's case but decided that it was not possible to clear Mr. Urosevic for employment at Blakenhurst and that it was not, therefore, possible for him to be reinstated.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  The following refurbishment projects, excluding routine maintenance and the replacement of plant and equipment, have been carried out in Home Office buildings in the last three financial years.
  335

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  London

  Windows (Queen Anne's Gate)

  139,134.00

  —

  53,187.00

  Toilets (Queen Anne's Gate)

  —

  38,968.00

  83,331.00

  Hot water points (Queen Anne's Gate)

  —

  —

  18,989.00

  Toilets (Abell House)

  —

  11,713.00

  —

  Hot water points (Abell House)

  —

  6,004.00

  —

  Hot water points (Horseferry House)

  —

  1,034.00

  —

  Toilets (UKPA, Clive House)

  —

  73,000.00

  —

  Installation of ceiling fans (UKPA, Clive House)

  —

  2,500.00

  —

  Office/toilet areas (UKPA, Hayes)

  111,000.00

  21,000.00

  —

  Provinces

  Office/workshop/laboratory (PSDB, Sandridge)

  459,846.00

  —

  —

  Workshop (PSDB,Sandridge)

  —

  13,222.00

  —

  Laboratories (PSDB,Sandridge)

  —

  167,019.00

  —

  Offices (UKPA, Liverpool)

  12,000.00

  —

  —

  Kitchen/restroom (UKPA,Liverpool)

  16,500.00

  1,500.00

  —

  Ceiling fans (UKPA,Liverpool)

  —

  3,500.00

  —

  Toilets (UKPA. Newport)

  —

  78,000.00

  —

  Wall fans (UKPA, Newport)

  3,000.00

  —

  —

  Offices (Supply and Transport, Branston)

  —

  8,000.00

  —

  Total

  741,480.00

  425,460.00

  155,507.00

  HIV
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of the Prison Service's policy on HIV to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 8 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the review of the Prison Service's policy on HIV.
  The review of HIV in prisons carried out by the Prison Service AIDS Advisory Committee has been completed and its recommendations are being considered.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make use of his Department's empty residential property.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight on 30 November 1994,Official Report, column 732. My Department will study the proposed guidance for Government Departments on how to secure better use of their empty residential property and make every effort to achieve the targets set.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases he is aware of involving asylum seekers who have absconded after being granted temporary admission; and in what time period these cases arose.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost in the financial year 1993–94 to the Home Office of detaining asylum seekers under Immigration Act powers; and if he will provide a breakdown of these costs.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information does not identify separately those costs which relate to asylum seekers.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who have been refused asylum have been removed or deported in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In the period 1 November 1993 to 31 October 1994, 1,860 asylum seekers were removed or voluntarily departed.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum made after 26 July 1993 are still awaiting an initial decision.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 31 October 1994—the latest date for which information is available—an estimated 16,790 applications which were lodged after the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 on 26 July 1993 were outstanding.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how asylum seekers are detained in prison establishments other than the designated prisons for that purpose;

  (2) how many different asylum seekers have been detained over the last 12 months at (a) HMP Birmingham, HMP Haslar, HMP Rochester, HMP Doncaster and HMP Holloway and (b) Campsfield detention centre, Harmondsworth, Gatwick Beehive, Queen's building Heathrow, Stansted airport and Dover docks.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 23 November 1994,Official Report, column 159–61.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the proportion of the 50,000 asylum applicants whose claims are still under consideration by the Home Office are liable to detention under Immigration Act powers.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not possible to say whether individual applicants are liable to be detained until their cases have been considered. However, only a tiny proportion of people who have sought asylum are currently detained.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of transporting and escorting an asylum seeker detained under Immigration Act powers to an appeal or bail hearing before the Immigration Appeals Authority.
  337
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Separate records are not maintained of the costs of escorting people who have sought asylum to appeal and bail hearings and the information sought is therefore not available.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who are held in detention under Immigration Act powers have appealed against refusal of asylum in the last 12 months; and how many of those have been withdrawn.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Of those currently held in detention who had sought asylum, it is estimated that just over 60 per cent. had lodged an appeal in the last 12 months. Less than 1 per cent. of these appeals had been withdrawn.

  Immigration
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to the Immigration Service in the financial year 1993–94 of carrying out reviews of decisions to detain under Immigration Act powers.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly or monthly cost of detaining someone under Immigration Act powers at(a) a detention centre or (b) a prison service establishment.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The average cost in 1993–94 of detaining someone under the Immigration Act at an Immigration Service detention centre is estimated at just

  Police Authority Expenditure (£ million)

  Table A

  Expenditure 1992–93

  Per cent, change on previous year

  Expenditure 1993–94

  Per cent, change on previous year

  Estimated exp 1994–95

  Per cent, change on previous year

  Dyfed-Powys

  current

  38.896

  +10.7

  41.518

  +6.7

  43.378

  +4.5

  capital

  1.982

  +1.2

  3.242

  +63.6

  1.445

  -55.4

  Total

  40.878

  +10.2

  44.760

  +9.5

  44.823

  +0.1

  Gwent

  current

  38.965

  +6.2

  41.406

  +6.3

  43.430

  +4.9

  capital

  3.882

  +4.4

  1.280

  -67.0

  2.141

  +67.3

  Total

  42.847

  +6.1

  42.686

  -0.4

  45.571

  +6.8

  North Wales

  current

  55.897

  +10.3

  58.387

  +4.5

  62.780

  +7.5

  capital

  1.617

  -3.1

  2.604

  +61.0

  1.688

  -35,2

  Total

  57.514

  +9.8

  60.991

  +6.0

  64.468

  +5.7

  South Wales

  current

  127.300

  +7.4

  130.885

  +2.8

  134.485

  +28

  capital

  4.420

  +29.3

  5.018

  +13.5

  5.873

  +17.0

  Total

  131.720

  +8.0

  135.903

  +3.2

  140.358

  +3.3

  All Wales

  current

  261.058

  +8.3

  272.196

  +4.3

  284.073

  +4.4

  capital

  11.901

  +10.5

  12.144

  +2.0

  11.147

  -8.2

  Total

  272.959

  +8.3

  284.340

  +4.2

  295.220

  +3.8

  338
  over £800 per week. The Prison Service normally holds detainees in local prisons or remand centres, where the average cost per place in 1993–94 was £411 per week.

  Police Authorities, Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for each police authority in Wales, and for Wales as whole, for the last available two years, and with an estimate for the next available two years(a) the total expenditure and (b) the percentage change from the previous year indicating in each case what proportion of expenditure is met by central Government provision.

  Mr. Maclean
  Table A lists the total current and capital expenditure, together with percentage increases, by each police authority in Wales in each of the last two years for which outturn figures are available. Estimated expenditure for 1994–95 is also shown. Fifty-one per cent. of this expenditure is met by Home Office grants to police authorities. Revenue support grant is also paid by the Welsh Office to the constituent county councils of police authorities in Wales.

  From 1995–96, the police authorities will be free standing, precepting bodies with their own standard spending assessment. Police specific grant will be paid as a cash-limited sum not as a proportion of expenditure.

  Table B shows the proposals for allocation of police grant to Welsh police authorities for current expenditure, and also the police standard spending assessments proposed by my right hon. Friend. the Secretary of State for Wales. Allocations of capital grant have not yet been determined.
  339

  Table B—Police authority provisional expenditure allocations 1995–96

  £ Million1

  Grant £

  SSA £

  Total £

  Dyfed-Powys

  22.557

  21.66

  44.217

  Gwent

  24.136

  23.26

  47.396

  North Wales

  32.211

  30.64

  62.851

  South Wales

  74.775

  71.46

  146/235

  All Wales

  153.679

  147.02

  300.699

  1 Excluding capital grant.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representation he has received from Welsh police authorities regarding their budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ferrers met a delegation from the South Wales police authority to discuss its financial situation on 1 February 1994. I have received no subsequent representations from Welsh police authorities about police budgets. It is the responsibility of each police authority to set the budget of its police force.

  Passport Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to report his proposals for the future of the Passport Office.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 23 November 1994,Official Report, column 163–64.

  Police Operation, Alexandra Palace
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of the police operation at Alexandra palace, north London on 2 to 3 December; how many officers were involved; and if the organisers of the event being held at Alexandra palace at the time of the police operation have made a contribution towards the costs.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 151 officers were involved in the operation to police the demonstration outside Alexandra palace, north London on 2 December. The additional manpower costs of the operation are estimated at £6,500.

  I understand that the organisers of the event held at Alexandra palace did not request the provision of special police services and that there was no question of chargeable services being provided. A police presence would not have been necessary but for the fact that a demonstration was organised to disrupt a private event. The policing costs were therefore occasioned by the demonstrators, who have not made a contribution towards the costs.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what appointments he has recently made to the Animal Procedures Committee.
  340
  Mr. Micheal Howard
  I have appointed the following Persons to be members of the Animal Procedures Committee for four years with effect from 1 December:

  Professor Ronald S. Anderson

  Professor of Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool.

  Professor Margaret Boden

  Professor of Philosophy and Psychology, University of Sussex.

  Dr. Yvonne Cripps

  Director of Studies in Law, Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

  Dr. David Christopher

  Director of Laboratory Sciences, Huntingdon Research Centre.

  Dr. John Flack

  Director of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hazleton Laboratories.

  Dr. Paul Flecknell

  Director, Comparative Biology Centre, the Medical School, University of Newcastle.

  Mrs. Judy MacArthur-Clarke

  Recent past President, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  Dr. Ian Purchase

  Director Central Toxicology Laboratories, Zeneca.

  Police Authorities (Membership)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) former Conservative councillors or candidates and (b) other persons known to be supporters of the Conservative party have been included in the lists of names submitted by him to local selection panels for membership of the new police authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 December 1994]: Information about the political affiliation of candidates was not sought on the application forms for these appointments.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many names of people from ethnic minorities have been included in the lists he has so far returned to local selection panels as approved by him for membership of the new police authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 December 1994]: Shortlists have been received from the local selection panels in respect of 39 of the 41 new police authorities. The Home Secretary has considered 38 of these. The total number of nominations made by the Home Secretary is 374, of whom 23 are from ethnic minorities.

EMPLOYMENT

  Bedfordshire TEC
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress Bedfordshire TEC is making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence.

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce that Bedfordshire training and enterprise council has now completed the progress of meeting the rigorous standard we set for the award of the new three-year licences. Its licence will be effective from April 1995.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to publish the findings of the evaluation of the Employment Service carried out in 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  An evaluation of the effects of agency status on the Employment Service was carried out during 1993 as part of the systematic periodic review to which all agencies are subject. A report on the findings has now been published today and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current estimate of the reduction of staff numbers during 1996–97 of those employed within the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service as a result of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance; what are the expected financial savings which will result during 1996–97 and the following year; what functions of the Employment Service are currently subject to market testing; and what plans there are to market test, subcontract or privatise the job-broking functions of the Employment Service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We expect the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance in April 1996 to result in efficiency savings. However, it is too early to estimate the impact on staffing in the Employment Service and Benefits Agency.

  The level of financial savings resulting from jobseeker's allowance will depend on the level of unemployment at the time of implementation. Our current assumptions are for a reduction in expenditure on benefits by around £140 million in 1996–97 and by about £270 million in 1997–98. Further net administrative savings are expected.

  The Employment Service is currently undertaking a full programme of market tests of support services. There are currently no plans to market test, subcontract or privatise the job-broking functions of the Employment Service.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment how many people are(a) employed on fixed-term contracts, (b) self-employed and (c) employed in part-time jobs; and what is the total in these groups.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Estimates from the spring 1994 labour force survey for Great Britain show that there were 732,000 employees on fixed-term contracts, 3,208,000 people who were self-employed, and 6,006,000 employees and self-employed working part-time. In total, there were 9,076,000 people who belonged to one or more of these categories.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the work force is currently(a) employed on fixed-term contracts, (b)

  Grade 3 and above(or equivalent)

  Other grades

  Structure

  up to 2 hours

  over 2 hours

  up to 2 hours

  over 2 hours

  First/economy

  Economy

  First

  Economy

  Economy

  Business/economy (or equivalent

  Business

  Business

  Economy

  Business

  First/club/economy (or equivalent)

  Business1

  Business

  Economy

  Business

  1 Ministers and grades 1 and 1A may travel first class.

  342
  self-employed and (c) employed in part-time jobs; and what is the total in these groups.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Estimates from the spring 1994 labour force survey for Great Britain show that of all people in employment, 3 per cent. were employed on fixed term contracts, 13 per cent. were self-employed, and 24 per cent. worked part-time as employees or self-employed. In total, 36 per cent. of all people in employment belonged to one or more of these groups.

  Training
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the percentage figures for achievement of national vocational qualifications(a) in the pilot areas for output-related funding with the major payment of training for work funding at the end of the training period and (b) the non-pilot areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  In 1993–94, 48 per cent. of those leaving training for work achieved national vocational qualifications or their equivalents in the areas where training and enterprise councils were piloting output related funding. In the non-pilot TEC areas of England the figure was 35 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that all TECs in England will move to a starts and outcomes funding regime for training for work from April 1995.

  Unemployment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current estimates of the effects on the monthly claimant count of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance and the introduction of incapacity benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on 14 April 1994,Official Report, column 345. Current estimates suggest that the relevant figure for the jobseeker's allowance would be approximately 25,000.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 518, about Overseas Development Administration spending on air travel, what categories of people travel (a) economy, (b) business or club class and (c) first class when on Overseas Development Administration business.

  Mr. Baldry
  The class of travel for ODA staff is determined by the length of journey and their grade as follows:

  Samarinda Power Station
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the aid-funded Samarinda power station in east Kalimantan, giving details of monitoring visits by Overseas Development Administration staff; what assessment he has made whether the technology provided is going to be suitable; and if he will place in the Library a copy of judgments that have been made on the environmental implications of the project.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Samarinda project consists of the provision of a 60MW gas fired combined cycle power station and associated transmission facilities. Work on the power station has just commenced while the transmission line contract is presently being negotiated.

  There have not so far been any monitoring visits by Overseas Development Administration staff. These do not usually commence until the project is under way. We envisage such visits will take place at six-monthly intervals.

  The project is part of an extensive Indonesian programme to bring power to the more remote areas of the country. Power at present is generated by a number of disparate, oil-fuelled diesel engines, some of which are old and inefficient. The new facility will utilise a cleaner resource, natural gas, which Indonesia has in abundance. The emissions from the gas turbines will meet United Kingdom/EU environment standards. The technical case for the project is sound.

  Outstanding Dept—1990–91-1999–2000

  Country

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  1997–98 £

  1998–99 £

  1999–2000 £

  Antigua and Barbuda

  1,980

  784,859

  1,290,309

  2,006,893

  2,006,893

  2,006,893

  1,828,323

  1,471,183

  1,114,043

  756,903

  Barbados

  445,670

  406,970

  368,270

  329,578

  290,870

  252,170

  213,470

  174,770

  136,070

  97,370

  Belize

  13,698,963

  14,064,634

  15,181,814

  16,585,152

  15,089,336

  13,588,492

  12,121,434

  10,662,986

  9,204,538

  7,746,090

  Bolivia

  141,276

  141,276

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brazil

  2,808,941

  3,501,297

  3,297,008

  3,297,008

  3,297,008

  3,297,008

  3,297,008

  3,297,008

  3,297,008

  3,297,008

  British Virgin Islands

  15,340

  10,655

  5,554

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambodia

  63,748

  45,498

  27,248

  8,998

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cameroon

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  66,776

  Cayman Islands

  719,120

  625,958

  561,398

  496,838

  432,278

  367,718

  303,158

  238,598

  174,038

  111,367

  Colombia

  2,053,678

  1,784,729

  1,515,780

  1,426,831

  977,882

  708,933

  439,985

  221,642

  169,867

  144,667

  Costa Rica

  3,214,041

  4,616,928

  5,195,615

  4,785,023

  3,930,839

  2,857,531

  1,952,789

  1,294,770

  921,332

  547,895

  Cyprus

  293,974

  273,574

  253,174

  232,774

  212,374

  191,974

  171374

  151,174

  130,774

  110,374

  Dominica

  8,616,757

  9,025,407

  9,170,735

  9,068,579

  8,527,579

  7,986,579

  7,445,579

  6,904,579

  6,363,579

  5,822,579

  Ecuador

  7,539,901

  7,539,901

  7,221,935

  7,973,382

  6,913,579

  5,872,564

  4,765,863

  3,638,659

  2,774,240

  2,154,469

  Egypt

  7,020,961

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Falkland Islands

  146,426

  124,126

  101,826

  79,526

  57,226

  34,926

  16,226

  0

  0

  0

  Fiji

  1,415,886

  1,179,889

  943,911

  707,533

  471,955

  235,978

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gibraltar

  710,293

  620,158

  529,001

  453,722

  378,443

  303,164

  227,889

  154,319

  89,869

  42,323

  Grenada

  3,856,949

  4,241

  5,196,703

  5,009,023

  4,383,823

  3,758,623

  3,133,423

  2,508,223

  1,883,023

  1,257,823

  Guyana

  24,340,689

  36,470,598

  36,470,598

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Honduras

  3,994,211

  3,994,211

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  India

  138,205,024

  112,949,901

  89,955,926

  68,743,326

  50,159,026

  35,100,147

  21,196,647

  10,179,819

  2,432,000

  0

  Ivory Coast

  3,556,463

  3,666,006

  3,690,430

  3,690,430

  3,480,615

  3,364,283

  3,053,352

  2,836,353

  2,619,492

  2,403,787

  Jamaica

  49,237,837

  58,962,199

  51,910,458

  55,047,129

  49,850,365

  43,904,538

  37,409,651

  31,476,168

  26,104,092

  22,241,857

  Jordan

  39,985,758

  40,808,280

  42,021,022

  43,728,451

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Laos

  27,983

  27,983

  27,983

  27,983

  25,313

  22,643

  19,973

  17,303

  14,633

  13,358

  Liberia

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  77,750

  Malaysia

  11,005,518

  10,045,084

  8,640,416

  6,791,514

  5,386,846

  3,983,525

  3,467,325

  2,951,125

  2,434,925

  1,418,725

  Malta

  7,845,531

  7,776,133

  7,765,525

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mauritius

  6,050,066

  5,187,896

  4,182,619

  3,289,311

  2,517,512

  1,888,812

  1,260,112

  631,412

  247,712

  0

  Nicaragua

  584,705

  584,706

  584,706

  584,706

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nigeria

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  4,905,084

  Paraguay

  4,102,707

  3,868,107

  3,281,607

  3,047,019

  2,812,419

  2,577,819

  2,343,219

  2,108,619

  1,874,019

  1,639,419

  Peru

  4,194,609

  4,194,609

  4,193,122

  4,193,122

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Philippines

  5,481,635

  5,481,535

  5,908,639

  5,612,306

  5,063,014

  4,595,569

  4,001,425

  3,306,680

  2,745,480

  2,184,280

  Seychelles

  10,631,662

  9,487,477

  8,913,204

  8,243,187

  7,582,878

  6,920,953

  6,259,836

  5,598,719

  4,937,602

  4,276,486

  Singapore

  5,208,316

  4,166,648

  3,124,980

  2,083,312

  1,041,664

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solomon Islands

  4,744,848

  4,738,148

  4,734,699

  4,684,985

  4,402,485

  4,120,429

  3,842,629

  3,564,829

  3,287,029

  3,009,229

  St Kitts-Nevis

  844,065

  1,363,409

  264,641

  2,813,090

  2,361,550

  1,910,010

  1,480,670

  1,097,836

  740,696

  383,356

  St Lucia

  3,142,091

  4,156,065

  4,388,070

  4,166,496

  3,833,096

  3,499,696

  3,166,296

  2,832,896

  2,499,496

  2,166,196

  St Vincent

  839,509

  1,272,576

  1,505,594

  2,390,440

  2,127,240

  1,864,040

  1,600,840

  1,337,640

  1,074,440

  811,040

  Swaziland

  8,193,097

  7,344,324

  6,155,191

  5,159,977

  4,194,576

  3,278,266

  2,430,291

  1,598,028

  837,292

  158,725

  Thailand

  772,892

  564,392

  425,392

  286,392

  147,392

  8,392

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tonga

  1,367,533

  1,219,061

  1,073,549

  930,708

  787,867

  645,029

  502,703

  371,303

  240,203

  157,803

  Tunisia

  255,902

  213,942

  171,982

  130,022

  88,062

  54,461

  26,661

  0

  0

  0

  Turkey

  55,572,641

  50,082,626

  45,056,525

  40,634,159

  36,607,270

  32,733,668

  29,324,867

  25,956,365

  22,388,355

  19,255,409

  Turks and Caicos Island

  0

  0

  1,883,408

  1,883,408

  1,817,462

  1,751,517

  1,685,571

  1,619,625

  1,353,680

  1,487,734

  344
  The potential environmental risks have been considered fully. Amongst other things, an ODA team investigated the risk of an enhanced power supply leading to plywood factories in the project area using more timber and therefore having an adverse impact on forests and plantations in east Kalimantan. The team's conclusion was that the project was unlikely to have such an impact. Social impacts have also been studied and found to be positive. An environmental impact assessment was undertaken as part of the feasibility study. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House shortly.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what discussions he has had with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, regarding third world debt.

  Mr. Baldry
  By long-standing convention, discussions of this nature between Departments are confidential.

  Concessional Aid Debt
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by country the total stock of existing estimated and outstanding concessional aid debt owed to the United Kingdom by developing countries for each year from 1990 to 2000.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 6 December 1994]: The amount of concessional aid debt outstanding by country at the end of each financial year from 1990 to 2000 was and is estimated as follows:
  345

  Outstanding Dept—1990–91-1999–2000

  Country

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  1997–98 £

  1998–99 £

  1999–2000 £

  Vanuatu

  86,100

  71,840

  57,580

  36,190

  21,930

  14,800

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vietnam

  196,798

  196,798

  196,798

  196,798

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yemen

  4,162,900

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Zambia

  45,262,252

  52,086,348

  52,056,548

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Zimbabwe

  21,485,121

  20,055,804

  18,394,889

  17,136,249

  13,677,609

  12,218,964

  10,760,629

  9,301,689

  7,843,049

  6,384,409

  Total

  519,191,977

  505,176,616

  465,357,392

  343,241,780

  250,005,886

  210,969,724

  175,199,028

  142,354,330

  115,382,186

  95,130,691

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General on what occasions since 1979 civil servants in his Department have been asked to draft speeches of a constituency nature for use in a Minister's own constituency.

  The Attorney-General
  None. Civil servants may provide briefing of a factual nature for Ministers on matters relating to their own department. In addition, Ministers in preparing for a constituency speech can draw on material produced by their Department during the normal course of business.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishment.

  The Attorney-General
  The following refurbishment works were undertaken and funded by the Crown Prosecution Service at headquarters buildings. In each case, the refurbishments included painting and decorating, carpeting, partitioning, screening and the provision of blinds and other equipment. Further refurbishment works have been undertaken in Crown Prosecution Service Areas but the information is not recorded centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Building

  Cost £

  Details

  1991–92

  10 Furnival street, London

  72,000

  Refurbishment for a new training branch

  1992–93 and 1993–94

  United house, York

  80,000

  Refurbishment of a newly acquired building

  50 Ludgate hill, London

  1,808,000

  Refurbishment of a newly acquired building

  1993–94

  50 Ludgate hill, London

  204,000

  New security installation for the entrance to the building

TRANSPORT

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of a journey by rail from(a)
  346
  Gospel Oak to Barking, (b) Enfield Town to Liverpool Street and (c) Peckham Rye to London Bridge, giving prices for (i) off-peak return, (ii) standard rate return and (iii) standard rate single for each year from 1979 to the present, and at current and 1994 prices.

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is not held centrally by either the Department or British Rail and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Automated Registrations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the introduction of automated first registration and licensing involves a transfer of an undertaking from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to motor dealers within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Norris
  The application of the regulations in this case is being considered and I will ask the chief executive, Mr. Curtis, to write to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich about this shortly.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by name the start-up costs for each national health service trust hospital, by region.

  Mr. Richards
  Prior to their operational date, the contribution made available for the shadow running period of established NHS trusts in Wales was as follows:

  1992

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust—£104,000

  1993—£215,000 to:

  Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS Trust

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  Swansea NHS Trust

  £300,000 to South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  1994—£275,000 to:

  Derwen NHS Trust

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  Rhondda Health Care NHS Trust

  347

  Velindre NHS Trust

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS

  Trust North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish(a) the out-turn figure for lending to NHS trusts in Wales in 1993–94, (b) the capital projects to which it corresponds, (c) the latest estimated out-turn figure for lending to NHS trusts in Wales in 1994–95 and (d) the capital projects to which it corresponds.

  Mr. Redwood
  The out-turn figure for lending to NHS trusts in Wales in 1993–94 was £26.690 million. The latest estimate of out-turn for 1994–95 is £87.521 million which includes provision of £20 million for short term loans. For information on capital projects in the capital programme for 1993–94 and 1994–95, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my predecessor on 4 March 1993,Official Report, columns 252–58 and my reply of 16 March 1994, Official Report, column 698.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions he is making to establish a task force to promote nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I intend to consult all the main interest in Wales about how to fulfil the Government's commitment to provide places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take them up.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to produce draft strategic planning guidance with particular reference to green belts.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am currently considering my response to the advice of the Assembly of Welsh Counties on strategic planning guidance in Wales including that on green belts.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will decide about the future of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales once the present review of health promotion has been completed.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call for a report into the decision and its implementation by Powys NHS trust whereby three elderly mentally handicapped women were moved from Brynhyfryd hospital to Llys Maldwyn hospital; and what assessment he has made as to whether the trust followed the community care guidelines and the all-Wales strategy for people with a learning difficulty.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: In accordance with the all-Wales mental handicap strategy, the number of residents at both Brynhyfryd and Llys Maldwyn hospitals is in decline. With the great majority of patients already resident in Llys Maldwyn, the Powys NHS trust decided to concentrate the nursing resources on
  348
  one site and transfer patients requiring permanent nursing care from Brynhyfryd hospital.

  The trust board sought professional advice and was assured that there would be no adverse medical effects on their patients.

  Following the transfer to Llys Maldwyn, the hospital's director of medical services and the chairman of Powys Health Care NHS trust have both visited the three patients concerned and have confirmed that they are all well and have settled in their new surroundings.

  I have made clear that the patient's needs must be the overriding factor in determining where he or she receives care. I expect all trust and health authorities to be guided by this advice.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the precautions taken to ensure that the environment in Mid Wales is safe from damage as a result of the operation and closure of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: All operations at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, including decommissioning, are regulated by Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate to ensure that public health and safety are protected. Discharges and disposal of waste from decommissioning are subject to strict authorisation conditions imposed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Welsh Office under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. These conditions include a requirement for environmental monitoring to evaluate radiation exposure and to ensure compliance with national and international guidelines. The results of the environmental monitoring are published annually by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Welsh Office.

  NHS Fraud
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policy towards combating fraud in the NHS in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: All health bodies in Wales are required to maintain appropriate systems of financial control in order to combat fraud in the NHS.

SCOTLAND

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Mr. Lang
  Property Holdings is responsible for much of the major refurbishment work in premises occupied by the Scottish Office. The Scottish Office carries out a considerable amount of small-scale refurbishment throughout its estate; individual projects costing more than £50,000 are set out in the following table:
  349

  Building

  Cost £

  Nature of refurbishment

  1991—92

  Cameron House, Oban

  75,000

  Provision of new carpeting, furniture and blinds

  Pentland House, Edinburgh

  60,000

  New furniture

  Saughton House, Edinburgh

  50,000

  Recarpeting corridors

  St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh

  60,000

  Recarpeting fourth floor

  1992–93

  Brandon Street, Edinburgh

  107,700

  Reorganisation and new furniture for 200 staff

  Brandon Street, Edinburgh

  122,000

  New IT furniture to comply with legislation and new storage units

  Longman Road, Inverness

  140,000

  New IT furniture to comply with legislation; new storage units and recarpeting

  Longman Road, Inverness

  100,000

  Contributions towards refurbishment of building by Property Holdings

  Pentland House, Edinburgh

  65,000

  Uprating of entrance and public reception areas

  Brooms Road, Dumfries

  50,800

  New furniture

  1993–94

  Dover House, London

  59,000

  Resiting radio studio and converting space to office use

  James Craig Walk, Edinburgh

  51,000

  Contribution towards rewiring of building by Property Holdings

  Broom Road, Dumfries

  52,000

  New IT and storage furniture and recarpeting

  James Craig Walk, Edinburgh

  140,000

  Upgrading of work processing training centre

  Reported Offences
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been reported by the police to procurators fiscal in each procurator fiscal area in Scotland in each of the last five years broken down by offence category; how many of such cases have been marked for no further proceedings; and what percentage of each total this represents.

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  The Scottish Office

  —

  5,313

  6,839

  645,933

  193,835

  Scottish Prison Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63,000

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on the Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be
  350
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not available on the offence categories reported to individual procurator fiscal offices, or on the offence categories in respect of which no proceedings were taken. The Crown Office collects information on the total number of reports submitted to individual offices by all reporting agencies, and on the number of cases in which no proceedings were taken. The figures for Scotland as a whole are detailed below. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will write to the hon. Member with a breakdown of the figures for individual offices.

  Total reports received

  Total marked "No Proceedings"

  Per cent.

  1989

  374,685

  45,092

  12.03

  1990

  381,492

  40,813

  10.70

  1991

  389,731

  35,326

  9.06

  1992

  387,293

  35,587

  9.19

  1993

  317,848

  35,590

  11.20

  Overseas Students
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislative proposals to allow colleges to charge overseas students fees for those studying part-time who have no permanent United Kingdom connection; and if he will make refugees and asylum seekers exempt from such legislation.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department is currently consulting further and higher education institutions about the possibility of allowing them to charge part-time students from overseas a different rate of fees from home students. It is not our intention to change how individuals granted refugee status are treated. Institutions have specifically been asked as part of the consultation if they are likely to offer concessions to students who have applied for refugee status. Their responses will be taken into account in taking any proposals forward.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the costs of redundancy payments to staff in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Staff reductions are largely being achieved by natural wastage and voluntary early retirement. Costs of redundancy payments to staff in the Scottish Office and its associated departments and agencies are therefore relatively low and are detailed. Figures for the Scottish Prison Service are shown separately.

  accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.uk" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department's press releases are already available via the Internet. My officials are considering the provision of further selected information.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of processing individual insolvencies for the past seven years in terms of(a) payments to insolvency practitioners and (b) direct administrative expenses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The net cost of processing individual insolvencies in Scotland was as follows:

  Year

  Payments to insolvency practitioners £ million

  Administrative expenses £ million

  1987–88

  0.42

  0.09

  1988–89

  2.41

  0.50

  1989–90

  7.52

  0.73

  1990–91

  12.25

  1.11

  1991–92

  18.50

  1.20

  1992–93

  26.31

  1.62

  1993–94

  24.60

  1.64

  From 1 April 1993, the administrative expenses include the costs of the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as interim and permanent trustee under the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1993.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost per case of processing individual insolvencies in Scotland in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; what was the percentage change; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the change.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average annual costs per live sequestration were £1,189 and £904 respectively in 1992–93 and 1993–94, a reduction of 24 per cent. Under the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1933, which were brought into effect on 1 April 1993, the costs of administering new sequestrations have been reduced and the costs of concluding existing cases also fell.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the average indebtedness of hill farmers and (b) the resultant loan servicing charges for each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: The information requested for livestock farmers in the Scottish less favoured areas is set out in the following table.

  Total liabilities

  At start of year £

  At end of year £

  Interest paid £

  1988–89

  26,983

  38,967

  2,881

  1989–90

  30,187

  31,172

  3,782

  1990–91

  31,528

  33,075

  4,149

  1991–92

  33,169

  32,805

  4,215

  1992–93

  38,060

  36,343

  3,594

  Source:

  Scottish Farm Accounts Scheme.

  The sample of farms changes slightly from year to year and caution is therefore needed when comparing absolute levels between one year and the next but the average
  352
  level of indebtedness has remained broadly constant over recent years.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by the Ministry to restrict BIV-infected livestock from entering the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have considered this very carefully, commissioning research and consulting not only independent scientific experts in this country but leading researchers in North America and Europe. There is no scientific evidence relating to BIV which would justify placing restrictions on livestock to be imported into the United Kingdom, and we are not aware that such restrictions have been imposed by any other country.

  Greater Thames Estuary
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responsibilities his Department has to protect habitats, flora and fauna within the flood plains of the Greater Thames estuary.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As Minister, I have a duty under the Agriculture Act 1986 to balance the interests of conservation with agricultural efficiency, the socio-economic interests of rural areas and public enjoyment of the countryside. In carrying out my flood defence responsibilities, I am subject to the provisions of the Land Drainage Act 1991, as amended, and the Water Resources Act 1991 so far as the furtherance of conservation is concerned. Finally, I am also bound by the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 to comply with the requirements of the EC habitats and birds directives.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest research on BSE.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry has a wide-ranging BSE research programme, costing £5.4 million for 1994–95, based on the recommendations of the consultative committee on research into spongiform encephalopathies. The research is regularly reviewed by the Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee and all results of conducted research are published.

  A new progress report on BSE in Great Britain will be made available shortly.

  Sugar
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to defend British interests in the forthcoming discussion on the reform of the EU sugar regime.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Commission has recently issued its proposals to make adjustments to the sugar regime. We well understand the various concerns of the sugar sector. We will strongly defend the interests of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming negotiations.

  Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with his Department's environmental programmes.

  Mr. Jack
  Progress in the Department's environmental programmes in reported annually in the environment White Paper—"This Common Inheritance"—and the MAFF-IB departmental report. Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Food and Drink Industry
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to help develop export opportunities for the United Kingdom's food and drink industry.

  Mr. Jack
  We are giving the fullest support to Food From Britain which, since last year, has as its main task assisting our food and drink companies to export. Developing export opportunities in the most promising export markets—the EU countries and north America—is central to FFB's work, and there are plans to extend these efforts into further markets in Asia, central and eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the middle East. This financial year, FFB expects to provide services to 250 firms, including 50 that are completely new to exporting.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding hill farming incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received a number of written and oral approaches from hill farmers and their representatives and hon. Members on hill farming incomes in the context of this year's autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. All these views were carefully considered before we came to a decision on the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances which will apply for the 1995 scheme.

  Horse Exports
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that the minimum value rule for horses exported to continental Europe has been implemented.

  Mrs. Browning
  The current directive on the welfare of animals during transport permits national rules on the protection of horses—which include the United Kingdom's minimum values system—to continue, and this we shall fight to retain. The rules have been in force in this country for many years and are fully implemented by Ministry staff.

  Marketing Development Scheme
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grants have been approved under the marketing development scheme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At 29 November 1994, 34 grant applications had been approved under the marketing development scheme.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors he will take into account in determining the levels of hill livestock compensatory allowance payable next year.

  Mr. Jack
  Rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances for the 1995 scheme were announced on 29 November. As in previous years, we took into account those factors which affected the net farm incomes of hill farmers this year, including the levels of support which hill farmers receive from the other livestock subsidy schemes and the returns from livestock markets. The decision was taken against the background of continuing pressure to reduce public expenditure.

  Compassion in World Farming Trust
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the report from the Compassion in World Farming Trust entitled "For Their Own Good" published in October; and what response he has given.

  Mrs. Browning
  We are studying the report carefully, and will be responding shortly.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is pursuing to assist United Kingdom farmers who export live animals; what representations he has made to the European Union authorities on the subject; when he last attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers, and what was the outcome of the meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  Departmental officials are scrutinising urgently and fully all detailed proposals for alternative routes to transport food animals to mainland Europe, following the withdrawal of the main cross-channel ferry companies. The Department takes very seriously its responsibility for ensuring that only proposals which provide adequate welfare safeguards are allowed to proceed, but also recognises that legitimate proposals which meet these requirements should be permitted to start up with a minimum of delay.

  My right hon. Friend has impressed on the European Commission and the Council of Ministers the importance of restoring public confidence by adopting at the Community level strict welfare controls and explicit enforcement arrangements: the last discussion in the Council of Ministers was in October when, regrettably, a number of member states successfully maintained their resistance to the kind of measures that we consider necessary.

  We shall continue to press for the highest possible Community welfare standards for animals in transit. However, in the light of the continuing absence of agreement at the Community level, we are pressing ahead with the implementation of the proposals we circulated for comment in September for tighter national controls and a code of practice.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received during the last six months on the subject of the export of live animals from England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  355
  Mrs. Browning
  We have received a very large number of representations, the majority expressing dissatisfaction at the export of live animals for slaughter or further fattening.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reassessment he has made of the benefits accrued to the United Kingdom from the contributions made to the EU common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Jack
  The European Union, of which the common agricultural policy is an integral part, offers widespread benefits to the United Kingdom. In this context, we continually reassess our policies with a view to reducing the cost of the CAP.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on the Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server, "open.gov.uk", or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 892. The Department is considering the use of Internet to provide further information from its range of published material.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now seek to renegotiate the concessions made to Spain and Portugal on the common fisheries policy in respect of Norwegian accession to the European Union.

  Mr. Jack
  The Norwegian chapters of the treaty of accession of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria, including those dealing with fisheries matters, will now be deleted following the outcome of the Norwegian referendum.

  Apples
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) Worcester Pearmain and (b) Discovery apples were estimated to have been eaten in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the past year; by how many people; at what average cost and what was the average cost 10 and 20 years ago in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that about 52 million Worcester Pearmain and 60 million Discovery apples were marketed in the United Kingdom in 1993. It is not possible to estimate how many individuals ate them, or the average retail cost.

  Anti-rabies Controls
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food when he will introduce anti-rabies controls based on vaccination and blood testing as an alternative to quarantine for pet dogs and cats.
  356
  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 892.

HEALTH

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the adequacy of funding and facilities at primary health care level to support her policy of changing the delivery of health care from secondary to primary locations.

  Mr. Malone
  Funding for the demand-led family health service programmes is up by 2.5 per cent. on last year's plans; in addition the cash-limited allocations to health authorities, announced Tuesday, include a special uplift of 2 per cent. in real terms for funding to support general practitioners' expenditure on staff, premises and computers.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table which breaks down the data in table 17 of the Department of Health statistical bulletin 12/94, "NHS Hospital Activity Statistics: England 1983 to 1993–94", by regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  A table setting out the information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table which breaks down the data in table 15 of the Department of Health statistical bulletin 12/94, "NHS Hospital Activity Statistics: England 1983 to 1993–94", by regional health authority; and if she will also show the results in terms of finished consultant episodes by leading diagnosis per 100,000 population in each age group in each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Tables setting out the information have been placed in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has to demonstrate that transfer of funding to Lancashire for care in the community is keeping pace with the transfer of responsibilities.

  Mr. Bowis
  Since 1990–91, Lancashire's total resources for social services, including community care, have risen from £92.9 million to £169.9 million. This is an increase of 56 per cent. in real terms compared to the national average of 49 per cent. Lancashire received a special transitional grant allocation of £19.8 million to meet its new responsibilities for community care in 1994–95. In addition, its resources for all social services, including the 1993–94 tranche of special community care grant, rose by 15.4 per cent. For 1995–96 Lancashire total resources for social services including community care will be increased to £185.4 million. It is for Lancashire county council to allocate these substantial resources efficiently and effectively to meet local needs and priorities.nb

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library the activity rate overall,
  357
  and by speciality, in finished consultant episodes in each English NHS region for 1992–93; and if she will show in each case the volume change since 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 is contained in "Ordinary admissions and day case admissions for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operating theatre sessions have been cancelled in each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional tables setting out information on cancelled operating theatre sessions for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93—the latest available—are contained in the publication "NHS Operating theatres availability and use, England—Year Ending 31 March 1993". Information for 1989–90 and 1988–89 is set out in "NHS Operating theatres availability and use—England" for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Herbal Medicines
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her recent statement about the availability of herbal products in which she referred to section 28 of the Medicines Act 1968 also covers the provisions of section 56 of that legislation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Yes. The exemptions, together with the public health safeguards which are provided by section 56 of the Act for retail sale and supply of certain categories of herbal medicines will continue to apply.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters she has now received from right hon. and hon. Members concerning the future availability of herbal medicines; and how many of those letters opposed the imposition of restrictions on the availability of such products.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received over 1,000 letters from right hon. and hon. Members who were concerned about the possible effect of proposed regulations on herbal medicines. Our confirmation that the exemption from product licensing requirements for certain categories of herbal medicines under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968 will be retained when the new regulations come into force has been generally welcomed.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each national health service trust in England the number of meetings that were held in public and in private for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Malone
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 requires NHS trusts to have one public meeting per year. Many NHS trusts have more. The number of such additional meetings and of those held in private is not available centrally.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Federation of National Health Service Trusts about the rise in emergency admissions to trust hospitals; and if she will make a statement.
  358
  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the Federation of National Health Service Trusts concerns about emergency admissions during the course of a meeting with it on 3 November.

  Medicines Regulations
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations Order originally was expected to be(a) laid and (b) passed by the House; and when she now expects these events to occur.

  Mr. Sackville
  These regulations are due to come into force on 1 January 1995. We expect to lay them before the House shortly.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement indicating precisely the definition of the term "industrially produced" which she intends to adopt in connection with the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations; and how this definition differs from other definitions of the term in European directives and domestic legislation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The term "industrially produced" is not defined in pharmaceutical legislation. We are satisfied that herbal medicines currently exempt from product licensing requirements fall outside the meaning of "industrially produced" as they are made by traditional processes or supplied on a small scale, and this will be reflected in the new regulations.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that all organisations representing practitioners of alternative and complementary medicines are in future properly consulted about proposed regulations affecting them and their clients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Our aim is to consult, wherever practicable organisations representing interests likely to be substantially affected by proposed regulations.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has received the survey by Dr. Colin Francome into general practitioner fundholding; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  London Ambulance Service
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide figures for the number of emergency calls to the London ambulance service for each six-month period between October 1992 and October 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service have provided the information in the table.

  Six-month period

  Number of emergency calls received

  October 1992–March 1993

  310,461

  April 1993–September 1993

  351,573

  October 1993–March 1994

  370,916

  April 1994–September 1994

  389,189

  Hospital Admissions
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide figures for the number of emergency admissions to London hospitals for each six-month period from October 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.

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

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which London hospitals were restricting elective admissions in August, September and October 1994 because of pressure of emergency workload.

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairmen of the London health authorities for information.

  Cancer
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will issue guidance to national health service authorities covering minimum standards in purchasing cancer and palliative care;

  (2) what plans she has to cope with the estimated increase of people living with cancer within the next 20 years;

  (3) what plans she has to issue minimum standards covering the provision of cancer care services.

  Mr. Sackville
  Last year, the chief medical officers of England and Wales established an expert advisory group on cancer to consider the provision of cancer services. The EAGC has already published a consultative report "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services" on the organisation of cancer services, copies of which are available in the Library. A number of current initiatives are producing guidelines with the aim of improving standards and quality of care including cancer and palliative care.

  Hospital Maintenance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region the hospital maintenance backlog as at 31 March.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 30 November 1994]: Information is collected on the estimated backlog maintenance cost for all buildings in the national health service. Separate figures for hospital backlog maintenance are not readily available.

  The figures shown in the table are the estimated costs of clearing outstanding repairs and upkeep required to bring all buildings on the NHS estate up to a satisfactory condition irrespective of whether they have a long term use. They include work to meet statutory and safety standards.

  A substantial reduction in the size of the estate is anticipated over coming years, along with a continuing ambitious programme of capital investment. These initiatives are expected, over time, to substantially reduce the backlog problem.
  360

  Figures including buildings scheduled for closure or due for replacement or upgrading as part of the capital investment programme.

  Region

  Cost of Backlog Maintenance at 31 March 1994 £,000

  Anglia and Oxford

  243,135

  West Midlands

  382,500

  South and West

  230,419

  Northern and Yorkshire

  321,103

  North Thames

  503,381

  South Thames

  378,527

  Trent

  132,983

  North West

  198,950

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to enable invalidity benefit claimants becoming members of health authorities to retain their right to invalidity benefit rather than claiming members' emoluments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply. It is an established principle of the social security benefit system that earnings are taken into account in full, whether or not the claimant chooses to waive receipt. There are no plans to alter this arrangement.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions since 1979 civil servants in his Department have been asked to draft speeches of a constituency nature for use in a Minister's own constituency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which public bodies, currently meeting in private, he proposes should in future meet in public.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  It is for the boards of public bodies to exercise their discretion as to whether or not they wish to hold meetings in public, except in the cases where there is a specific statutory obligation to do so.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many parliamentary questions tabled in the last Session of Parliament were not answered on the grounds that the information sought was not held centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  During the last Session of Parliament, there were 40 occasions when parliamentary questions tabled to my Department received the answer that all or part of the information requested was not held centrally. This represents 5.18 per cent. of the total questions asked.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  House Owners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to revise payments to house owners to protect them from lenders repossessing their homes for trivial debts.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In 1991, the Council of Mortgage Lenders gave an undertaking that lenders will not seek possession in cases where mortgage interest pàyments are fully covered by income support.

  Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced proposals for changes to the help that income support provides for the housing costs of home owners. Most of the changes will be introduced in October 1995 after consultation. The lenders will be included in the consultation process.

  Income Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants who have lost their benefit books have been refused an immediate replacement in the past three years; and, where there has been a previously lost book, how many had been subject to unauthorised encashments.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 7 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of customers who have, in the past 3 years, been refused an immediate replacement after losing their Income Support order book; and, the number of unauthorised encashments where there had been a previous loss.
  The information you have requested about the refusal of replacement payments is not available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. However, there was an omission in the details provided in response to your previous Question on this matter (Official Report Vol.218, Co1.694) as one category of loss had not been included. I have taken this opportunity to correct that and, at the same time, to bring it up to date. The revised figures are attached as an appendix to this letter. I am sorry for any inconvenience you may have been caused.
  For the reason given in the earlier reply, the present payment system does not allow us to identify accurately the number of unauthorised encashments of order books which had previously been reported as lost. Plans to automate benefit payments made at post offices are expected to provide for full reconciliation of transactions.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Number of order books issued

  6,472,016

  7,599,276

  9,117,392

  Number reported lost or stolen

  66,954

  89,919

  108,484

  Number reported lost or mislaid after receipt

  28,004

  42,072

  52,931

  362

  Income Support

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Number reported stolen after receipt1

  7,418

  10,267

  13,357

  1 Omitted from figures supplied previously

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what categories of people with disabilities will be excluded from his plans to limit income support assistance with mortgage interest payments after October 1995;

  (2) if people over the age of 60 will be excluded from his plans to limit income support assistance with mortgage interest payments from October 1995;

  (3) if lone parents will be excluded from his plans to limit income support assistance with mortgage interest payments from October 1995;

  (4) when he proposes to issue a consultation paper setting out his plans to limit income support assistance with mortgage interest payments from October 1995.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Changes to the level of income support assistance with mortgage interest payments were announced in the uprating statement. Pensioners will be protected and the position of other groups will be considered during the consultation process. The consultation paper will be issued in the spring.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to scale back income support assistance with mortgage interest payments for existing borrowers.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Proposals for changes to income support help with mortgage interest payments for existing borrowers who make claims for income support from next October were contained in the uprating statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 30 November.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures giving a breakdown of expenditure on income support assistance with mortgage interest payments by claimant group and for all claimants showing for each(a) total expenditure on interest payments for the first nine months of a claim and (b) total expenditure on interest payments over nine months from the start of a claim, giving the most recent available figures.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Details are available only for the weekly amount of mortgage interest in payment at the time the survey was carried out. Details are set out in the table below.

  Income support claimants with mortgage interest payments

  Weekly expenditure on mortgage interest-claimants on IS less than 9 months £ million

  Weekly expenditure on mortgage interest-claimants on IS 9 months or more £ million

  Pensioners

  0.2

  1.6

  Sick/Disabled

  0.4

  2.2

  Lone Parent

  0.9

  4.2

  Unemployed

  3.4

  6.3

  Other

  0.4

  1.2

  All cases

  5.3

  15.5

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1994.
  363
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many existing recipients there are of the disability premium of income support, housing benefit and council tax rebate in(a) Scotland, and (b) Strathclyde and the Benefits Agency districts contained within Benefits Agency area directorates 4 and 5.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The figures for income support for August 1994, the latest information available, are:

  Scotland (total)

  Strathclyde

  AD4

  AD5

  78,732

  51,588

  31,105

  26,690

  Source:

  Benefits Agency Management Information Statistics. Data is subject to amendment.

  The information about housing benefit and council tax benefit is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Scotland

  75,000

  68,000

  Strathclyde

  48,000

  Information not available

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information Systems, annual 1 per cent. samples with and without Income Support taken at the end of May 1993.

  Notes:

  1 The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 The figures are for benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the effect of his decision to remove the right to income support covering the first nine months of mortgage interest on the rate of house repossessions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The proposals announced strike a careful balance between the need to stimulate the insurance market, and the need to protect owner occupiers. There is no reason to suppose the withdrawal of income support entitlement for new borrowers for the first nine months will adversely affect the rate of repossessions.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions has he had with(a) mortgage companies and (b) insurance companies regarding his proposals to remove the right to income support covering the first nine months of mortgage interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Officials hold regular meetings with lenders and insurers to discuss issues of mutual interest. Ministers intend to meet the Council for Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers in the new year as part of the consultation process on these proposals.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the savings to his Department that will accrue from proposed changes to the level and availability of income support to cover mortgage interest in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We propose to consult widely on the precise detail of the changes. The financial effects will depend on the outcome of the consultation and the final details of the scheme.
  364
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his proposals to remove the right to income support covering the first nine months of mortgage interest for all mortgages taken out after October 1995 apply to(a) those re-mortgaging existing properties and (b) second mortgages taken out to cover necessary structural repairs.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  These matters will be considered during the consultation process.

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all forms of benefit that can be obtained through his Department stating for each benefit(a) when it was first introduced and (b) if it was an entirely new benefit or superseded an earlier payment.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Year introduced

  Benefit/s replaced

  Retirement pension

  1948–49

  Christmas bonus—contributory

  1973–74

  New

  Widows benefit

  1948–49

  Unemployment benefit

  1948–49

  Sickness benefit

  1948–49

  Invalidity benefit

  1971–72

  New

  Industrial disablement benefit

  1948–49

  Industrial death benefit

  1948–49

  Other industrial injuries benefits

  1948–49

  Existed prior to 1948–49.

  Maternity allowance

  1948–49

  Guardians allowance

  1948–49

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  1970–71

  New

  Christmas bonus—non-contributory

  1973–74

  New

  War pension

  1948–49

  Introduced in 1914–15.

  Attendance allowance

  1971–72

  New

  Invalid care allowance

  1976–77

  New

  Severe disablement allowance

  1984–85

  Replaced non—contributory invalidity pensions.

  Disability living allowance

  1992–93

  Replaced and extended mobility allowance as well as attendance allowance to the under 65s.

  Disability working allowance

  1992–93

  New

  Income support

  1988–89

  Replaced supplementary benefit, which in turn replaced national assistance and non contributory old age pension in 1968–69.

  Child benefit

  1977–78

  Replaced family allowance.

  One parent benefit

  1981–82

  Replaced child benefit increase.

  Family credit

  1988–89

  Replaced family income supplement.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimate of the likely increased level of appeals under the new test for incapacity benefit; and what extra resources are being allocated to the independent tribunal service to deal with that increase.

  Mr. Hague
  Current planning assumptions are that the number of appeals which will be lodged on the question of incapacity will be in the region of 140,000 in 1995–96. As it will take several months to prepare each appeal for hearing, not all these appeals will be cleared during the year. The Independent Tribunal Service will be allocated sufficient funds to deal with as many appeals as they expect to have available for hearing.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to channel extra resources to(a) local enterprise companies, (b) local authorities and (c) the Employment Service for retraining, rehabilitation and other strategies in respect of current invalidity benefit recipients who will lose entitlement following the introduction of incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  I have no such plans.

  The function of incapacity benefit is to help those incapable of work because of their condition. The provision of services supporting those seeking employment is primarily a matter for the Employment Department.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimate of the number of current recipients of invalidity benefit in Scotland, Strathclyde and the Benefits Agency districts contained within Benefits Agency area directorates 4 and 5.

  Mr. Hague
  Estimates by region are not available. Estimates of the number of existing invalidity benefit recipients in Great Britain expected to be found capable by the new medical test of incapacity are in the table.

  Year

  Number of recipients (thousands)

  1995–96

  140

  1996–97

  80

  1997–98

  20

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimation of the rate at which current recipients will be medically examined by Benefits Agency medical service doctors under the new test in Scotland, Strathclyde and the Benefits Agency districts contained within Benefits Agency area directorates 4 and 5.

  Mr. Hague
  From 13 April 1995, and over the following two to three years, the new test will be applied to all current recipients in those areas not in the exempt categories.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on repayments of overpayments made to the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on 25 October,Official Report, column 560.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors cause alterations in Child Support 366
  Agency maintenance payments when the child being supported reaches the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Burt
  Alterations in liability for child support maintenance when a child reaches the age of 16 depend on the circumstances of the case.

  If the child ceases non-advanced full-time education, liability ceases unless the termination date for child benefit has not been reached.

  The maintenance requirement—the amount calculated to represent the basic maintenance needs of a child—can be affected by two factors at age 16. First, the personal allowance for the child increases in line with income support allowances. Secondly, if the child is the youngest or only child to be maintained by the absent parent, then the carer element of the maintenance requirement is removed.

  However, many absent parents cannot in any case meet the full amount of the maintenance requirement and their maintenance assessment is a lower amount. In these cases a change in the maintenance requirement will not necessarily lead to a change in the maintenance assessment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to appoint an ombudsman or inspectorate to oversee the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Complaints about the handling of cases by the Child Support Agency already fall for investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  The Government do not have any plans to establish a separate ombudsman or inspectorate with responsibility solely for the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the reduction in work for the Child Support Agency which would result if clean-break amicable arrangements were exempted from the scope of the agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The very limited data available about divorces involving a clean break settlement suggest that less than 10 per cent. of parents with care receiving income support, and up to 20 per cent. of parents with care not receiving income support, may have such a settlement. There is no information about the proportion of cases in which the parties regard the settlement as amicable.

  If such cases were to be exempted from the scope of the Child Support Act, the conclusion is that well under 10 per cent. of benefit cases would be excluded. Non-benefit cases in this position are not due to be taken on by the Child Support Agency until 1996–97 and application will be voluntary ex-partners with an amicable settlement will therefore presumably not apply.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of administering the housing benefit system for the last financial year available.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Local authorities estimate that they spent £255 million on administering the housing benefit scheme for the 1992–93 year.

  Source:
  Social Security Department Report 1994.
  367
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average expenditure on housing benefit per claimant for(a) council tenants, (b) housing association tenants and (c) private sector tenants, for each year since 1979 in constant prices.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Average amount of housing benefit Real terms 1994–95 prices (£)

  Private tenants

  Great Britain

  Local authority tenants

  All private tenants

  Housing association tenants

  Other private tenants

  May 1988

  21.28

  25.21

  N/A

  N/A

  May 1989

  21.78

  26.43

  N/A

  N/A

  May 1990

  23.00

  29.57

  N/A

  N/A

  May 1991

  24.88

  35.60

  N/A

  N/A

  May 1992

  27.80

  40.42

  33.89

  42.76

  May 1993

  29.53

  44.48

  36.47

  47.74

  Source:

  HBMIS

  Notes:

  1 All figures in the tables have come from the Housing Benefit Management Information System (HBMIS) 1 per cent. samples.

  2 Information for earlier years is not available.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the cost of housing benefit after the changes introduced in the Budget for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This information will be published in the Social Security departmental report in the normal way.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit review boards were held in each English and Welsh local authority in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not collected.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals were received by each housing benefit review board in England and Wales in each year since 1986; of these, how many were heard and determined at a hearing; and what was the number of successful appeals.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the estimated cost to a local authority of administering, hearing and determining a review board appeal.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Responsibility for operating review boards lies with individual local authorities. It is not possible to make a representative estimate of these costs to an individual authority since detailed information is not collected about particular aspects of their operating costs. In addition, review board costs could vary widely depending upon the arrangements made by individual authorities.

  In-work Benefits
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the introduction of the new in-work benefits for single people and childless couples;
  368
  (2) what is his Department's estimate of the annual gross and net costs of introducing on a national basis the in-work benefit for single people and childless couples; how many single people and childless couples would be eligible; and what proportion these form of the totals in these groups.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We shall be publishing a consultation document in April 1995 giving details of our proposals for the new in-work benefit.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average cost of a social security appeal tribunal appeal determination in 1993–94.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It is estimated that the average cost of an appeal to a social security appeal tribunal for the Independent Tribunal Service in 1993–94 was £265. The Benefits Agency's costs in preparing and submitting these appeals are not included.

  Mortgage Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average cost to new borrowers of taking out insurance against unemployment and sickness to cover their mortgage interest payments as a result of the decision to limit income support assistance with new mortgages from October 1995.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  According to the Association of British Insurers, the current average cost of mortgage protection policies is about £7 per month for every £100 of cover.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on the Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.uk" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 30 November,Official Report, column 751.

  Pensions Bill
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what significant policy developments since the publication of the White Paper will be reflected in the forthcoming Pensions Bill.

  Mr. Lilley
  Since the publication of the White Paper, "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions", the Government have refined their proposals in respect of a statutory minimum solvency requirement and age-related rebates following further detailed analysis and consideration of comments received on the original proposal.

  In relation to the proposed statutory minimum solvency requirement, I now propose that there should be an adjustment to the valuation basis in respect of very large schemes, to allow an equity component in the calculation of their pensioner liabilities; that the time limits for restoring schemes' funding levels to at least 90 per cent.

  369
  and 100 per cent. of the statutory minimum solvency requirement should be extended to one year and five years respectively; and that the statutory minimum solvency requirement calculation should be smoothed over a period of months rather than being based on market values on a particular day. With these changes the statutory minimum solvency requirement should deliver an appropriate level of security for members' pension entitlements, without imposing unnecessary burdens on business.

  The White Paper announced our intention to introduce age-related rebates for appropriate personal pensions and contracted-out money purchase occupational pension schemes in April 1997. This will ensure that money purchase pensions remain attractive across a broader age range. To help phase in this policy, I intend to introduce a 9 per cent. cap on the age related rebates when they are brought in. This should enable the vast majority of existing appropriate personal pension scheme holders to continue with their scheme until they reach state pension age. It will also mean that younger employees can continue to take out new appropriate personal pensions. Details of the illustrative rates of the age-related rebates will be published by the Government Actuary in his report on the forthcoming Pensions Bill.

  Further details are set out in a letter of 8 December to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) which is in the Library.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to propose that(a) the amount of child maintenance paid by an absent parent will be taken into consideration when other benefits are calculated and (b) those parents who can afford less than £2.30 a week in maintenance payments should be zero rated.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans.

  If an absent parent's maintenance liability were to be deducted from his income before his entitlement to income-related benefits was assessed, this would mean that his benefit entitlement was higher and was, in effect, contributing towards the maintenance payment. Also, since maintenance is assessed on the basis of an absent parent's income including any income-related benefits, the higher benefit entitlement should lead to a higher maintenance liability, producing a circular effect.

  The Government believe that it is right that absent parents should normally make some contribution towards the support of their children. The minimum amount, currently £2.30 a week, is payable where assessed maintenance is less than £2.30 or where the absent parent is on income support. However, absent parents who should pay the minimum amount are exempted where, for example, they are sick or disabled or are themselves bringing up a child; most of those on income support, and all those on family credit, are exempted.

  Nursery Provision
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide support for single parents to use existing nursery provision in addition to existing benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Lone parents already use a wide range of informal and formal methods of child care including day 370
  nurseries. The help with child care costs from October 1994 in family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, is payable in respect of day nursery provision where charges are made for this.

  Along with child benefit and one-parent benefit, lone parents can qualify for a range of extra assistance within the income related benefits such as the lone parent premium, a higher earning disregard and a maintenance disregard.

  Child Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Education about(a) short and (b) long-term provision for child care.

  Mr. Burt
  There is a continuing discussion across Government at ministerial and official level on a wide range of issues affecting the family, including child care.

  Computerisation Programme
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the lead company awarded the contract for the computerisation programme at his Department.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This Department uses a wide range of computer organisations in the development, implementation and maintenance of its computer operations.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the estimated cost and (b) the actual cost of the computerisation programme at his Department.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The actual cost of computerisation in 1993–94 was £450,322,000. This was within the estimated cost for the year, at £450,357,000.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), on 1 December 1994,Official Report, columns 884–85, regarding the benefit rights available to British citizens under present habitual residence rules, if he will make a statement on the basis by which such citizens have a right to claim under existing rules relating to the social fund.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 30 November,Official Report, column 747.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1994,Official Report, columns 424–25, concerning the application of the habitual residence test in Lewisham, Deptford; how the test is being applied; what are the guidelines issued to adjudication officers; and what is the length of time clients are having to wait for habitual residence test interviews.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  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.
  371
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 7 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for details of the application of the habitual residence test in Lewisham, Deptford.
  The habitual residence test is applied to all Income Support customers who satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement of Income Support and have indicated on their claim form that they have come to live in the UK in the last 5 years. Relevant information is gathered by officers acting as the Secretary of State, normally by interview, to establish the reasons and intentions for coming to the UK. This information is then considered by an adjudication officer who decides if the customer is habitually resident in the UK. The customer is informed in writing of the decision and of their right of appeal.
  Before the habitual residence test regulations became effective the Central Adjudication Services provided adjudication guidance (Adjudication Officers Guide (AOG) Memo Vol 3/69), offering an interpretation of the term "habitual residence" using existing European social security legislation where the concept of habitual residence is mainly to be found. The Benefits Agency (BA) also issued procedural instructions to offices on the handling of claims when the habitual residence test is to be applied (Income Support Guide (ISG) Circular 15/94). Copies of the ISG Circulars are available in the House of Commons library. I have enclosed a copy of the AOG Memo and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  Initially, Lewisham caller office had a problem with the number of cases that required an interview and appointments were delayed for up to 4 weeks. This problem has now been addressed and personal callers with an urgent claim can usually be seen the same day. Non urgent and postal claims are generally seen within one week.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes, if any, are proposed to the existing £15 weekly disregard available to couples where the claimant's unemployment duration exceeds two years under the proposed arrangements for a back-to-work bonus available to jobseeker's allowance recipients; what is the proposed maximum accumulation period during which a claimant or claimant's partner in part-time work may have benefit deducted to be set aside; under what circumstances a claimant's partner who obtains full-time work will be eligible for receipt of the back to work bonus; and how the back to work bonus income will be treated for the purposes of pay-as-you-earn or national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Under our proposals for jobseeker's allowance the £15 earnings disregard for long-term unemployed couples will be abolished. A £10 disregard will apply for all couples in place of the usual £5 per person under current income support rules. Where a person is receiving income-related jobseeker's allowance, or income support, a partner's earnings will help to build up a bonus, which can be paid if the partner obtains work of 24 or more hours a week. No decision has yet been made on whether there should be a maximum accumulation period. The back to work bonus will not be subject to income tax and national insurance contributions.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the best estimates of the numbers of unemployed people who are currently receiving income support at the reduced rate on grounds of hardship who would not qualify under the proposed jobseeker's allowance arrangements; under the new arrangements, in 372
  what circumstances entitlement to either housing benefit or assistance with payment of mortgage interest payments continue if an unemployed claimant is under sanction but cannot demonstrate that a household member would suffer hardship; and what arrangements are envisaged under the jobseeker's allowance for the treatment of unemployed claimants who are judged to be voluntarily unemployed on grounds of misconduct or voluntary leaving; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A total of 2,779 hardship payments were made in the year to March 1994 to unemployed people who were found not available for or actively seeking work. The arrangements for access to hardship payments under the proposed jobseeker's allowance will broadly follow those which apply for actively seeking work in income support. Payments are made at the discretion of an adjudication officer on a case-by-case basis. Estimates of those who would not receive payments under the jobseeker's allowance are not available.

  Sanctioned claimants not in receipt of hardship payment in a given week will be able to claim housing benefit on income grounds. During the period of the sanction they will not be entitled to jobseeker's allowance, including any elements in respect of help with mortgage interest payments.

  People who leave work voluntarily without just cause, or through misconduct, will not receive jobseeker's allowance for up to 26 weeks unless they can demonstrate that a member of their household would suffer hardship. Hardship payments will be made under income-related jobseeker's allowance and will be equivalent to a reduction of 40 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the personal allowance. Such payments will not be available for the first two weeks of a benefit sanction except to people with children, with caring responsibilities, who are pregnant or have a pregnant partner, or who are sick or disabled or who have a partner who is sick or disabled.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimate, based on the most recent information for income support recipients, of the number people likely to become eligible for jobseeker's allowance as a result of extending the threshold of a partner's weekly working hours from 16 to 24; what is the estimated cost from payment of income support to those brought into eligibility; and what changes, if any, will be made to eligibility for either housing benefit or assistance with mortgage interest payments to jobseeker's allowance recipients with a partner employed for less than 24 hours per week.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information on the costs of, and the number of people who will benefit from, the change in the partner's hours threshold is given in the table.

  Those entitled to either income support or income-related jobseeker's allowance as a result of the increase in the partner's hours threshold will continue to be entitled to maximum help with their rent, subject to any deductions for non-dependants or ineligible service charges. Had the hours threshold not been increased, housing benefit could still have been claimed on income grounds where the partner was working 16 hours or more per week. In these cases where net income, including partner's earnings, exceeds income support levels, the amount of help from housing benefit will reduce as

  373
  income rises, as now. Help with mortgage interest payments will also continue where the partner is working for less than 24 hours per week. If the partner's hours threshold had not been increased no help with mortgage

  Increase in the numbers eligible

  Increase in the number of claimants

  Cost of IS/JSA (IR) £ million

  FC Saving£ million

  Total net cost£ million

  JSA (income related) (IR)

  25,000

  15,000

  35

  25

  10

  Income Support (IS)

  5,000

  5,000

  5

  —

  5

  Total

  25,000

  20,000

  40

  25

  15

  Notes:

  JSA—Jobseekers allowance

  FC—Family credit

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Modelled on the PSM using the 1990–91–92 FES and the 1994–95 benefit system.

  All caseload figures rounded to the nearest 5,000 and savings/costs to the nearest £5 million.

  Estimates do not include any tax or behavioural impacts.

  Costs/savings are given in 1997–98 prices and assume 2.4 million unemployed.

  Couples are assumed to claim IS/JSA only if they are better off on IS/JSA than they would be on FC.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under the proposed arrangements for the jobseeker's allowance, what will be the taper for reducing the allowance above the £50 weekly ceiling for those unemployed claimants whose payment will be abated on the ground of their receipt of occupational pension income; and what are the best estimates available of the total numbers of unemployed claimants who would be affected by this abatement and the number who would lose the entirety of the jobseeker's allowance payment, in both cases for those aged over 55 years and those aged 55 years and under giving separate figures.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As is currently the case with unemployment benefit, there will be a 100 per cent. taper. The precise mechanism is still under consideration. However, current broad estimates of the numbers of people who will be affected by the occupational pension abatement rules in jobseeker's allowance as well as the numbers of unemployed claimants who will not receive any jobseeker's allowance because their pensions are too large is set out in the table.

  Aged less than 55

  Aged more than 55

  Estimated number of unemployed claimants who receive no JSA because of pension

  5,000

  5,000

  Estimated number of JSA recipients with pensions of more than £50 per week

  5,000

  5,000

  Estimated number of JSA recipients with pensions of less than £50 per week

  5,000

  10,000

  Notes:

  (1) All caseload estimates rounded to the nearest 5,000; as a result the figures do not sum.

  (2) All estimates assume that JSA has been introduced and the length of entitlement is set at six months. Estimates assume that any occupational pension above £50 per week is abated against
  374
  interest payments would have been available if the partner worked for 16 hours or more per week, as entitlement to income-related jobseeker's allowance would have been extinguished.

  benefit. Estimates assume that there is no age limit under which occupational pensions are abated.

  (3) Estimates assume 2.4 million unemployed claimants and 500,000 UB cases.

  (4) Estimates use the 1993 and 1994 Unemployment Benefits Statistics, the 1993 Annual Statistical Enquiry, and the policy simulation model using 1990–91–92 data.

  (5) Estimates do not include tax or behavioural implications.

  (6) Estimates assume that those claimants aged less than 55 who currently receive UB and who will not be eligible for any contributory JSA continue to claim benefit.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out details of the new rates of benefit proposed from April 1995, revised in the light of the decision not to proceed with the second phase of VAT on domestic fuel.

  Mr. Lilley
  The revised benefit rates are in the schedule which has been placed in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to introduce similar changes.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of unemployed people, listing figures for men and women and separately for those aged under 25 years and those aged 25 years and over who would not qualify for unemployment benefit if the period of entitlement were reduced from 12 months to six months showing the number of claimants(a) likely to be affected over a full operational year and (b) likely to be affected at any one point in an operational year; how many would be eligible for income support; how many are expected to apply for credits of national insurance contributions; what the net saving to the Exchequer would be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information on the numbers affected at any one point in time is in the table. Estimates of the number who are likely to be affected over an operational year are not available. We estimate that
  375
  approximately 45,000 people who would have no entitlement to unemployment benefit or income support would decide to sign on in order to be credited with national insurance contributions. Our current

  All

  Men

  Women

  Under 25

  Over 25

  A. Estimated number who lose entitlement to unemployment benefit

  165,000

  115,000

  45,000

  30,000

  135,000

  B. Of numbers in A the estimated number entitled to income support

  95,000

  75,000

  20,000

  25,000

  70,000

  C. Of numbers in A estimated number entitled number entitled to neither unemployment benefit nor income support

  70,000

  45,000

  25,000

  5,000

  65,000

  Notes:

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  All costs/savings estimates rounded to the nearest £10 million. All caseload estimates rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  All estimates in 1994–95 prices.

  Estimates assume 2.4 million unemployed claimants and 500,000 UB cases.

  Estimates do not include tax or behavioural implications, except for the estimate of those who will continue to sign to claim NI credits. In this case we have assumed that the same number will continue to sign if UB exhausts after six months as currently continue to sign when UB exhausts after 12 months.
  376
  unemployment assumptions setting the length of entitlement to unemployment benefit at six months rather than 12 months is estimated to result in net savings of £170 million.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by The Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Chemical Weapons Convention: Consultation Document
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to introduce legislation to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, legislation to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and other government legislative priorities permit. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced today in a Written Answer that the Department of Trade and Industry will issue a discussion document early in the New Year to canvass the views of industry on the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention in the United Kingdom.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that this country has done more than any other to bring about this admirable convention; and that 16 countries have now ratified but Britain has not? What is the reason for this delay? Presumably, it is a matter of a short Bill; both Opposition parties have made it clear that they will give it a fair wind; and it cannot be claimed that the legislative programme is overcrowded with important measures. What is the reason for this?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on a number of points: first, the United Kingdom has indeed played a major part over a period of 20 years in getting this convention agreed to, and Britain has signed it. The noble Lord said that 16 states had ratified. In fact, the number is 17. But he will also understand, I am sure, that when the convention comes into operation it will have quite an effect on industry. It is necessary to discuss with industry the best way of setting about this. I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation will be introduced as soon as it can be.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister clarify one point? He said that there is to be a discussion paper. Will that paper be published before legislation, or will deal with how the measure will be implemented? Will he accept from me that there are many of us who feel that Britain ought to ratify this measure at the earliest possible moment and that, for the reasons already given by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, we ought to be taking the lead? Is there not a danger with a discussion paper that there will be a long delay before there is legislation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope that there will not be a long delay before the legislation is brought forward. The noble Lord will be only too well aware of the
1012
pressures that are experienced by any government in respect of legislative timetables. I have given the assurance that we will introduce this measure as soon as is reasonable.
The consultation document will contain the outline of our proposals for the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and it will seek the views of industry. It will cover issues that are important to industry such as declarations; the way in which industries will be inspected; and respecting commercial confidences.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is in the nature of things that when legislation affects industry there are bound to be people who are opposed to it? As it has long been the Government's policy that this legislation should be put into effect, would it not be much more encouraging and satisfactory for the Government to complete their legislative programme, put this legislation through and then discuss it afterwards? They are often ready to do that on other occasions; why not do it now?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a most extraordinary suggestion from the noble Lord. He will recall that periodically the Government are blamed for not taking account of people's views before they introduce legislation. We are doing the sensible thing and taking account of people's views.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, can the noble Earl inform the House of steps that are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to achieve full international application of effective intrusive inspection and verification measures with regard to chemical and biological weapons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think I can give an assurance to the right reverend Prelate that the inspection and verification of the way in which countries operate is an essential part of the convention. It will first come into operation 180 days after 65 countries have ratified. The chemicals in which Britain is interested are not those in Schedule 1, which will come into operation immediately, but those listed in Schedule 2 which will be banned when the schedule comes into force three years later. Ensuring that countries behave fairly and properly is an essential part of the convention.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what he meant by "consulting industry"? Does he mean that industry in this country is heavily involved in the export of chemical weapons or with the manufacture for the home market of chemical weapons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, there are certain chemical weapons which are deeply offensive. The constituent part of those weapons can also be a chemical which is used by industry. One example is phosgene, which as a gas is very offensive, but which is used perfectly correctly in the plastics industry. We want to make sure that industry is not

1013
affected adversely in relation to the activities that it is perfectly legitimate for it to undertake, but that it does not sell or use such materials for weaponry purposes.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl said that there must be time for consultation with industry, which is very comprehensible. But should we take it that among the 16 or 17 countries which have ratified there are not also industrial powers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only answer for Her Majesty's Government. I do not know what happens in the countries which have ratified. They have their own methods of ratification and doubtless some of them have their own methods of consultation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that I asked a similar Question early in the summer? Is it not the case that, if we do not ratify the convention by next month, there could be some very harmful implications for British industry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Countess asked a similar Question. I am not aware that if we do not ratify within a month there will be serious implications, for the reason that the chemicals that are in Schedule 1, as I explained earlier, are the ones which operate immediately the convention comes into force. We have no industries which use those Schedule 1 chemicals for weaponry purposes. Therefore, they will not be affected. Our industry is concerned in the main with Schedule 2 chemicals, which operate three years later.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government wish to canvass industry's views to find out which industries, if any, are adversely affected—I hope that I quote his words accurately. If industry (whatever "industry" may be) comes back to the Government and says, "We are all adversely affected", do the Government intend to drop the ratification proposal?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, that is also a very curious question from the noble Lord. I said that the Government intend to ratify, and they will ratify. What I said that we intend to do is to discuss with industry the methods by which the implementation will take place. There is nothing sinister and nothing wrong about that.

Cot Deaths
3.14 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they are taking to avoid child cot deaths.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, responding on the 18th November to media speculation about the causes of cot death, the Chief Medical Officer issued a statement which reiterated the earlier advice given to health professionals and parents
1014
during the Back to Sleep campaign. On 30th November he announced the composition of an expert group which has been formed to steer further work on cot deaths by the department.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most people will welcome the Government's decision to set up that group to look again at the question of whether toxic gases from cot mattresses can in fact contribute to child death? Is she further aware that the anxieties of many parents would be allayed if they could have a specific undertaking that that committee would look into the levels of antimony in human tissues, especially as the original committee failed to do so adequately?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the original committee made a very thorough investigation. Its findings were that there was no causal link between the antimony found in cot mattresses and those babies who suffered sudden infant death syndrome. The terms of reference of the new group are to review the findings of the Turner Report—the report to which I referred—in 1991 and to see whether there are any subsequent data on the hypothesis linking antimony with unexplained deaths in infants. It is to advise the Chief Medical Officer on what further studies should be undertaken to investigate postulated causal relationships between chemicals and cot deaths. I hope that that covers the point.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, when Dr. Calman, the Government's Chief Medical Officer, has called together the new group of experts—I believe that the Government made the correct decision and that it will be a great satisfaction to many people—and it has reported, will that report be submitted for examination in the House?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there are many worried parents who probably need immediate counselling and advice on this subject? We welcome some of the terms of reference of the new committee of investigation; but is the Minister aware that the Royal College of Nursing has set up a helpline on this subject which has already received many hundreds of telephone calls? What other action will the Government take to support that kind of proposal, which offers practical help to worried parents at the very moment when they need it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that we have a very sophisticated system with health visitors and midwives advising young parents on the care of their babies. We have also issued posters to be displayed in GP surgeries and leaflets on this matter. I should like to commend the Royal College of Nursing on its helpline. It has received 3,000 calls and the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths had 4,000 calls. It was a great pity that that particular programme caused so much anxiety and unrest among young parents.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the noble Baroness forgive me if I challenge an assertion that she

1015
made in her Answer? She said that the previous committee conducted a thorough investigation, and that means a comprehensive investigation. I am stating that that committee did not investigate thoroughly the antimony levels in human tissues. That is the issue before us today. That is what we want the expert group to inspect. Will the Minister therefore consider that specific request? It is very important to the outcome of the whole investigation, to the parents and to other people.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the new expert group will do a very thorough job. It will take into account all the points made in the two television programmes. The original group looked into the hypothesis that toxic gases evolved from chemicals in cot mattresses and cot mattress covers, and therefore could have been the cause of sudden infant death syndrome. However, this group will do an even more thorough job.

Iraq: Sanctions
3.20 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they remain unwilling to lift sanctions on Iraq until they are convinced that Saddam Hussein will respect the rights of the Kurds.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, yes. The United Nations has repeatedly made clear to the Iraqi regime that there can be no question of relaxing sanctions until they comply fully with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, is it her opinion that things have improved for the Kurds in the north of Iraq in the past year or is Saddam Hussein still ignoring Resolutions 688 and 712?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords. Things have not improved. In his latest report the UN Special Rapporteur commented that there had been no improvement in Iraq's human rights record. Indeed, the situation has deteriorated even further during the past year. But we are all mindful of what needs to be done and are working to try to ensure that it is done.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, several times the Minister expressed concern for the Kurds and confirmed again just now that their situation in northern Iraq is getting worse rather than better. Is it not possible to negotiate some arrangement whereby the Kurds are not doubly disadvantaged by the sanctions? What attempts have the Foreign Office made to seek some sort of exemption for people who are clearly suffering?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in seeking any sort of exemption, one must be extremely careful to stay within the limits that we have already set of humanitarian goods being able to reach people in the country. Help is already going to the Kurds and in the
1016
past month new help has been sent to the Iraqis in the south who have been so terribly treated by the Saddam regime. I shall look into the matter to see whether there is any more that we can do. But Britain cannot do it alone. It must be done by the whole international community. Britain is second to none in its efforts to get help to those people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not painfully clear that the position in this part of the world will not be satisfactory so long as Saddam Hussein is there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I have agreed with him on this point many times in the past. It is an easier thing to say than it is to obtain. That is why we have done our best to help the Iraqi people to set up the Iraqi National Congress to give strength to those who are determined to fight. I share my noble friend's view that, as long as Saddam Hussein remains, there will not be an appreciable difference, though we can welcome the fact that there has now been at least the Iraqi recognition of Kuwait, which was long overdue. However, we must remain cautious. Only one month before the Iraqis signed up to recognise Kuwait they had been threatening troops on the Kuwaiti border.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Ennals, does the Minister agree that, while it is right to continue sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime, we owe it to the Kurds to do all we can to mitigate the effects of those sanctions? Can the Minister tell the House whether the aid that the British Government committed to the Kurds in northern Iraq—I understand that it amounts to £4.7 million mainly for medical assistance and village rehabilitation—is reaching those for whom it is destined?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is certainly true that a high proportion of what is sent is reaching the Kurdish people in the north. Since April 1991 the United Kingdom has contributed over £66 million worth of aid and I have just set aside another £8 million of specific aid to help the plight of the Iraqi people, particularly the Kurds, and the Shia Moslems in the south who are also affected. Aid is getting through, though not 100 per cent. We know that soldiers of Saddam's regime make forages into Kurdish villages to obtain what they can. That does not mean that we shall stop operating and trying to get help to the Kurdish people and to the people from the marshes.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while we are remembering the Kurds in northern Iraq, some other Kurds also need to know that we are trying to help them? I refer to the Kurds in Turkey. Can my noble friend say that they are being remembered for assistance as well as those living under Saddam Hussein?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no specific programme of assistance to Kurdish people in Turkey. They live in a society where we constantly remind the government of the needs of all the people of Turkey. Turkey is not only a member of NATO, but

1017
also a member of other organisations. If there is deprivation, it must be handled with the Turkish Government, and that we shall seek to do.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us which, in the Government's opinion, is worse in its handling of the Kurdish people—the Iraqi Government or the Turkish Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no comparison between the way in which Saddam Hussein treated innocent Iraqi people—Kurds and Shias—and others who are not Kurds or marsh people. There is no comparison. I am amazed that the noble Lord should ask such a question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correctly pointing out Saddam Hussein's attitude to anybody who is opposed to him. But is she prepared to accept that those of us who have visited that country and know that what she said is absolutely true also know that some Kurds are in the pay of Saddam Hussein and are willing to betray their fellow Kurds to any innocent western journalist with whom they may be in contact?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in some isolated circumstances the noble Lord may be right. But the majority of Kurds, particularly those who form the Iraqi National Congress, are fighting for their own people and trying to stabilise the Kurdish parts of Iraq.

Defence Cuts
3.28 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what basis they justify defence cuts of £2.5 billion (in constant prices) between 1993–94 and 1997–98 as announced in a "note to editors" accompanying the Budget Statement of 29th November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the 1994 settlement is sufficient to maintain in full the front-line force structures set out in the 1993 and 1994 Defence White Papers. The reductions in the defence budget over this period principally reflect implementation of the final stages of the Options for Change restructuring programme; expected savings from the implementation of Front Line First and the effects of efficiency improvements.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, in so far as I can be, for that Answer. Can he confirm that comparing like with like there will be a cut of approximately one-tenth in the defence budget? In fact, in real terms it is slightly over one-tenth. It will go down by 3 per cent. next year, 6.5 per cent. the year after, 1.5 per cent. the year after that and so forth. Is that consistent with what the Secretary of State said to the Conservative Party Conference?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, it is entirely consistent. As I made clear, those were not new announcements, as
1018
the noble Lord seems to be implying. They result from Options for Change, the Defence Costs Study and other such reviews. The new plans show a cost programme reducing in real terms by some 11 per cent. I can assure the noble Lord that last year's press release showed a very, very similar reduction. It is, in fact, nothing new.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, these figures contain the belief within the Government that the tender price offered by Devonport for the refitting of Trident submarines will be met. It now seems absolutely clear that there is no stability in the docking facilities at Devonport and that substantial sums of money, running into many millions of pounds, will have to be spent to stabilise the facilities. There are also other serious defects in the facilities at Devonport. Who will have to pay these additional sums of money? Would it not make more sense, even at this date, to transfer the refitting of the Trident submarine fleet from Devonport to where it should have been in the first place, Rosyth?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand if I do not allow myself to be drawn into quite such detail on the question of Rosyth. However, I can give him an assurance that my right honourable friend will be answering a question on that subject later today.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is it not the case that, when the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister made statements to the Conservative Party Conference that there would be no further cuts in defence, they must have known that these further cuts which had not been announced were in preparation for the Budget, one month later in November? Why did that take place? Does the Minister realise that the justification for the change on page 121 of the Red Book is that it is to meet military redundancies and to enhance our front line situation, both of which any normal person would think would require an increase in defence expenditure and not a reduction?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord in no uncertain terms that I have not been misleading the House in saying that these were not new cuts. The reductions were announced in last year's Budget. In fact the 1994 settlement is worth around £220 million more in 1995–96 and £310 million more in 1996–97 than the previous plans allowed. The cash reductions for 1995–96 and 1996–97—some £300 million and £200 million—are more than compensated for by the fall in inflation, which no doubt the noble Lord welcomes. I can assure him that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made their remarks about the need for a further period of stability they knew that we had sufficient resources in this settlement to sustain the range of front-line capabilities described in the recent statements on the Defence Estimates.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the Government were to give up

1019
Trident they could save much more money than this? There need be no personnel discussions. They could even have more military bands.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no intention of giving up Trident. I do not know what the views of the party opposite are but I am very interested to hear the noble Lord's views.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that when we debated what was known as Front Line First your Lordships were assured that the savings coming from Front Line First through more efficient administration would go towards the procurement of weapons for the front line? We were assured by no less a person than the present Leader of the House. In the light of the figures which appear to have been slipped out in an appendix to an appendix to an appendix to the Budget Statement, can the noble Lord explain why they told us that the savings from Front Line First were to be used for front-line equipment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry but I think that this is entirely unacceptable. The noble Lord is accusing us of what amounts to dishonesty by saying that we were announcing new cuts. We were not. We were repeating the same announcements that we had made in previous years. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said on the occasion of the announcement of the Defence Costs Study—Front Line First—the new plans will mark an end in the upheaval of defence, they will preserve all the front-line capabilities necessary and they will fund necessary enhancements in the equipment programme.

Christmas Recess
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of Business, it is expected that the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Friday 16th December. It is expected that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is expected that the House will return on Monday 9th January.
Business
Lord Strathclyde: At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Henley will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Financial Statement that is to be made in another place.

Financial Statement
3.36 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. Following the vote on Tuesday night, I told the House that the Government remained committed to taking all the necessary measures to put
1020
the public finances on a sound footing. The reductions in the public sector borrowing requirement I announced in my Budget were welcomed at the time by the business community, by the financial markets and by this House. During the course of the Budget debate few right honourable and honourable Members questioned that judgment. To keep these borrowing plans intact, I said I would be bringing forward measures to make good the gap in the public finances from holding the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent.
"I can now tell the House what those measures will be. A press note filling out the details of my proposals will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.
"Holding the rate of VAT at 8 per cent. will reduce revenue by about £1 billion in 1995–96 and, reflecting the quarterly profile of payments, £1.5 billion in subsequent years. These are the amounts that I have sought to recover.
"Since VAT on fuel will remain at 8 per cent., it would be quite wrong to increase social security expenditure by providing the full compensation package previously announced to help people with VAT at 17.5 per cent. We will adjust the amount that would have been paid if VAT on fuel had been increased, saving around £200 million in 1995–96 and subsequent years. We will of course keep in place the help already given for 8 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel and power. We will increase benefits fully in line with the relevant cost-of-living index, including the component reflecting the impact of last year's VAT increase.
"After these adjustments pensioner couples will receive help of at least £1.05 a week from next April. This will be more than the average weekly cost to pensioners of paying 8 per cent. VAT on fuel. I am also keeping unchanged the increases in cold weather payments and spending on the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme which I announced in the Budget and in last Tuesday's debate.
"This small change in the previously announced pension rates has a knock-on effect to the national insurance system, since the lower earnings limit is automatically linked to the single pension. National insurance contributions will therefore start at £58 rather than £59 a week from April 1995. The upper earnings limit will be unchanged. This will have the effect of raising receipts from national insurance contributions by some £50 million next year.
"The remaining gap for 1995–96 amounts to some £800 million. My first step was to look at public spending. In my last two Budgets I have been able to find savings of £43 billion in public spending over the four survey years. This is much larger than the increases in taxation that we have found it necessary to make to restore healthy public finances after the recession.
"We have managed to find these savings while increasing spending in real terms on key public services such as the National Health Service and the police. My objective remains to reduce government

1021
spending to below 40 per cent. of total national output. Both of my Budgets have made that objective much more achievable.
"The details of this year's extremely tight public spending settlement have already been announced by the relevant Secretaries of State. I do not consider it practicable or sensible to reopen those settlements today. At the time of my Budget, I struck a balance between spending and revenue designed to ensure that the economy remains on track for steady and sustainable growth. Nothing that has happened since then has led me to change that judgment for this year's settlement.
"The next area I considered to recover the shortfall in revenue was direct taxation. Since 1979, this Government have reduced the basic rate of taxation from 33 pence in the pound to 25 pence. and we also introduced the new lower rate of 20 pence. One-fifth of all taxpayers now pay tax only at this lower rate.
"When seeking to raise revenue in the 1993 Budgets my right honourable friend and I considered it necessary to freeze personal allowances and to reduce the married couple's allowance and the mortgage income relief allowance. I considered then that these increases in direct taxation were a sufficient and reasonable contribution to our revenue needs. That remains my view today. I do not intend to reverse my decisions to index the personal allowances and to over-index above inflation the elderly person's allowance and the 20 pence band.
"I also considered raising additional revenue from business taxation. In my Budget I provided as much help as I could for the business community. The reason was simple. Strong and thriving businesses are essential for a strong and thriving economy.
"I also listened during last week's debate to the Labour Party's proposals for closing loopholes and introducing a windfall tax on utilities and I have done some work on studying them. They are not serious options for revenue raising. This Government have never been a friend to the tax avoidance industry and Conservative Chancellors have changed loopholes year after year. The last two Budgets speak for themselves. I raised nearly £3.5 billion between 1994–95 and 1997–98 by closing loopholes. The honourable gentleman's proposals on loopholes are undesirable changes in taxation on legitimate business.
"I have looked many times at his proposal on executive share options. The policy behind tax relief for executive share options is geared to encouraging companies to motivate key employees and benefit all shareholders. Executives are liable to capital gains tax once they sell their shares. The right honourable gentleman exaggerates the cost of the scheme. He has claimed that I could raise £200 million by 'reforming' it. The actual total cost of this relief is estimated at around £50 million.
"The suggestion of a windfall tax is, by definition, a one-off tax. It could not replace permanent annual loss of a flow of revenue. In any event, it appears to be based on the suggestion of taxing profits on gains
1022
which, as the right honourable gentleman appears to have discovered in this morning's press, are already liable to taxation. A windfall tax would simply be another tax on a particular sector of industry. Like other taxes on business, it would inevitably have adverse effects on that business sector's investments and prices.
"My third and remaining option for 1995–96, therefore, has been to look at indirect taxation. As the House has rejected an increase in indirect taxation to which it had previously agreed, it is wholly consistent with my Budget strategy and it preserves the shape of the Budget to fill the hole with increases in indirect taxation. I have decided to bring forward certain increases in taxation in addition to those announced in my Budget to take effect from midnight, 31st December 1994.
"I propose that the duty on tobacco products, with the exception of hand-rolling tobacco, will increase by just under 4 per cent., equivalent to 6 pence on a packet of 20 cigarettes. This further increase in tobacco duty is consistent with our policy of increasing prices to discourage smoking.
"I also propose that the duties on road fuels will rise by a further 1 penny per litre. I have kept these increases to the minimum to limit the burden on business users and the rural motorist. Even after the increases, petrol will still be cheaper in real terms than a decade ago and cheaper than for our main European competitors. The increase will also play a part in our strategy for curbing the emission of CO2. We remain fully committed to the target of reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
"Finally, I propose that duties on alcohol will rise by around 4 per cent. This is equivalent to 1 penny on a pint of beer, 5 pence on a bottle of wine and 26 pence on a bottle of whisky. For the reasons set out in my Budget Statement, I had hoped to spare these industries any increase in duty this year. But in the present circumstances and as a result of my need to raise revenue from sources other than VAT on fuel, I have reluctantly judged it necessary to raise some additional revenue from them.
"Taken together, these increases will raise £180 million in the current year and nearly £800 million in 1995–96. In total this is sufficient to meet the shortfall next year. I expect the public sector borrowing requirement next year to be the same as I announced in my Budget Statement.
"Let me turn now to the following year, 1996–97. For that year I need to raise £1.5 billion. The tax measures that I have announced today will raise an additional £850 million.
"The impact of the higher duties that I have announced today on the RPI will not be as great as the impact would have been from the second stage of VAT on fuel. Inflation will therefore be very slightly lower than expected leading to further public spending savings on benefits of around £160 million in 1996–97 and later years. And there will be savings of around £200 million from the withdrawal of help to compensate for the second stage of VAT.

1023
"There will, however, remain a further gap of around £300 million to be filled in 1996–97. I propose to finance this gap by reducing the public expenditure control totals for those years. For the time being I will score that reduction through a reduction in the provision that I have made for the reserve. The eventual consequence for departmental programmes will be addressed in next year's spending round. I expect the public sector borrowing requirement to be as I announced in my Budget Statement in 1996–97 and in subsequent years.
"Resolutions under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act to hold VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. with effect from 1st January 1995 will be tabled very shortly. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House will then be arranging a debate before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.
"I said in my Budget speech that the British economy was currently facing the most favourable set of economic circumstances it has seen for many years. Trade figures published only this morning show that exports are up 14 per cent. in the past year and once again at record levels. The trade deficit is the lowest it has been for almost 10 years. The outlook for jobs and future prosperity for men and women in this country is improving day by day.
"This House has an obligation to keep this healthy recovery on track. We have an obligation to act responsibly and not be tempted by short-term populist measures which would undermine confidence in the Government's commitment to sound public finances. The measures I have announced today ensure that that commitment is fulfilled."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I do so most sincerely. But I am bound to say that responding to a Statement, sight unseen, is an absurd way for me and the rest of your Lordships to go on. All of us will respond as best we can. But there is an overwhelming case for dealing with these matters in a different way.
There is certainly an overwhelming case for your Lordships to have some time, as I understand the other place will have, to debate these matters before Christmas. I know that we always say that this is a matter for the usual channels, who will take your Lordships' views into account. But too frequently they do not. Thus even on an important matter like this today, as I understand it, the Back-Benchers will be limited by our usual rule on Statements to 20 minutes after the Front-Benchers have had their say. That will not do. There are great events occurring in our country and your Lordships are placed on the sidelines as spectators. It is about time that we asserted ourselves a bit more and demanded the right to discuss problems like this when they occur and not when the relevant events are history.
We start from a different position from that,' of the Government because we believe that this policy was mistaken in the first place. What I have not heard from the noble Lord—and I must ask him this question among others—is this. Do the Government still believe
1024
that the tax on domestic fuel was a good thing? There has not been a word of withdrawal on that. Do the Government believe that they were right to have had the second tranche of that tax, which they have now had to withdraw, or can we at least be told that in future there will not be a further increase when they feel that they can get away with it? Is that the end of at least the second tranche? We need to have an answer to that.
Before turning to the detail, the other thing that I have to say, very unhappily, is that this is nothing to do with economics or finance; it is all to do with politics. It is all to do with the noble Lord's right honourable friend papering over the cracks in a totally split party. It is also to do with the Government desperately trying to think of a way of taking income away from the public by means of taxes and then giving people a bit back later in order to try to get a few people to vote Tory at the next election. The Government are taking with one hand and giving back with the other. I believe that neither of those political moves has any hope whatever of succeeding. I do not believe that the cracks have been papered over or that the Government can pull off that confidence trick yet again. The Chancellor would have been better advised throughout to stick to serious economic and financial policy-making.
Perhaps I may say en passant, since this is my only opportunity that, as I said yesterday, I believe that raising the short-term rate of interest was a mistake. It was a panic measure. It is disturbing to read in the newspapers today that at least some people believe that it is a preliminary to further such increases. To do that would be another example of misplaced policy. Indeed, the whole matter is puzzling because the noble Lord has said, and the Government have claimed, that the economy is doing very well. However, with respect to interest rate increases we have a paradox because the Government are saying, "Yes, we are doing well so we had better stop that and make sure that we do not do too well". To use an expression that we came across not too long ago, the Government are saying, "We can see some `green shoots' so we had better make sure that there is a bit of winter frost to destroy them".
I shall ask questions in a moment about the details—in so far as I can grasp them—but the other thing that puzzles me is that this whole matter is to do with very little or almost nothing. The way in which we approach the Budget in our country makes it a crisis if any attempt is made to amend it or to deviate from what the Treasury wants. Other countries manage these matters quite differently. Other countries do not regard it as a crisis or a catastrophe if the legislature endeavours to change fiscal proposals. They are discussed rationally and the legislature often get its own way. The Government seem to be placing themselves in peril. Indeed, they are in peril for a good many reasons, but it is absurd for the Government to place themselves at risk in this way.
I believe that if there could be a free vote in your Lordships' House on this matter, a similar view would result here as in another place, but we are not allowed to have such a vote because of our predecessors' misdemeanours in 1911. There is nothing that I can do about that. I cannot even blame any Member of your Lordships' House for what happened in 1911, but I

1025
would certainly like the opportunity to exercise that kind of power. However, unlike what happened in 1911, if I could exercise such power, I would then defer to the other place in due course. As I was saying, it is absurd that the Government should be placed in peril simply because, in my opinion, some sensible people rightly thought that it was a stupid tax.
I turn now to the detail, although it is immensely difficult to do so at the moment. Related to the question of whether the Government really still believe that what they were doing (until they failed to do it) was right is the question: Are the Government now telling us that they truly believe in what they are now doing? Or are the Government about to tell us that if they had the chance they would like to be able to impose the extra VAT on domestic fuel? Are they saying, "We are only doing these things because we can't do what we want"? What is the Government's position? Are they going to defend the tax increases because they believe that they are intrinsically correct or because they do not know what to do?
I ask that because I would certainly prefer one or two of the propositions to increasing the VAT on domestic fuel. Noble Lords opposite know my views on smoking. I believe that one of the best ways to reduce the incidence of smoking is to raise the excise duty on tobacco. I have no difficulty whatever with that. Indeed, I preferred that to what was proposed. My own view is that if we could have approached such matters sensibly, we would never have gone down the path of putting VAT on domestic fuel; instead, we would have done something about tobacco duty.
I know that the alcohol question is a little more difficult. On the one hand, I believe that the Treasury should raise as much revenue as it can from drinking but, on the other hand, I know that there is the problem of competition in a free market in Europe. It is a difficult technical problem. Does the increase in alcohol duty include the reduction in the duty that is being reversed on champagne and other sparkling wines? Perhaps the Minister can tell us about that very important matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what about the champagne socialists?
Lord Peston: Exactly.
I turn to my next point. In taking £200 million away from pensioners, I take it that the noble Lord is saying that pensioners were to get that £200 million to offset the second tranche of the increase in VAT and that he is now saying that, because there is no increase in VAT, the Government are taking back whatever the sum is just to show how generous they are. I take it that it will amount to about 35p per pensioner. Are the Government saying, "Just to show what a caring government we are, we are taking that 35p away from you"? Can the noble Lord confirm that?
I have referred to sitting on the sidelines and I know only what I learn from sitting on the sidelines, but we are told that a great deal of extra money was found as part of a package to buy off the noble Lord's honourable friends who opposed the increase in the second tranche of VAT. I thought that the sum was £100 million. Can
1026
the noble Lord tell us what has happened to that £100 million? Has it just disappeared? Indeed, from where was it being found in the first place? It is not for me to advise the Government in their pathetic attempts to try to recapture some popularity, but having got the Treasury to agree to that £100 million, I should have thought that it would be sensible not to let the Treasury pinch it back again. I would have found a way of not taking that sum from the pensioners at least. But that is up to the Government.
Although I am keen to have a debate on this matter, I do not feel that this is the correct time to go through, as did the noble Lord, the main suggestions put forward by the Opposition. There is no hurry for me. Only the others will be made to hurry. The noble Lord did us the honour of telling us that he had considered seriously all the suggestions that had been made by the Labour Party. I must advise him that I am shocked by the Treasury's rejection that it wishes to rule out any intensification of the way in which we deal with loopholes. I am unhappy about that. If we have an opportunity to debate it, I shall explain to the noble Lord how we can deal much more seriously with loopholes than is the case at present.
I take a similar view of executive share options. I am amazed to discover that there is a new Treasury doctrine that we do not care for windfall taxes. I should like to know the date of that Treasury doctrine. The rule in the Treasury used to be, "We'll tax anything we can and keep what we can get away with. The fact that it was a windfall will not bother us at all". Perhaps the noble Lord could reflect on that and tell me whether he would like to consider the matter further.
I have nearly reached my final remarks. What really puzzles me as an economist is that we are heading towards a public sector borrowing requirement of £20 billion with a lower figure still to come. Speaking from memory, I recall that the margin of error in the public sector borrowing requirement is plus or minus £6 billion. That is in the nature of such economic figures. Is it not strange that within a number such as £6 billion we are footling around with £200 million which is of a totally lower order of magnitude? Why does not the Chancellor approach this matter rationally and say, "I wanted to do it, but the economy is doing pretty well, and I wanted it to carry on doing well", and let us forget the whole thing, apart from apologising to the pensioners?
I conclude by echoing the remarks of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. He offered to help the Government out of their difficulties in this matter. I should like to echo those remarks. I wish to be as helpful as I possibly can, because I am concerned about the future of our great nation, and my desire is that the economy should not be made worse than it otherwise would be. Will the Minister tell his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he feels that he needs my advice, which I feel strongly he does, he has merely to pick up the telephone and ask, and I shall respond as positively as I can?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for having repeated the Statement, and to

1027
support what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, that, exceptionally on this occasion, we on this side of the House did not receive a copy of the Statement, something which I regard as rather rare in our proceedings on such an important issue. Furthermore, I hope that we can have time for a longer debate on this matter.
The whole issue raises the question of what is the strategy behind the Budget. The Chancellor has been knocked off course on a relatively small part of the Budget; but that calls into question whether the aim is to support our long-term economy or to build up a reserve to use for a short-term political purpose. If in the next Budget the benefits which have been derived from the improvement in the economy are used purely for short-term purposes, then I should have thought that the thinking was deficient. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that the intention is to build up the economy; that as we derive greater benefit from the current improvements, they will be ploughed back into the business of Britain in the form of stimulating further investment; to improve our infrastructure; and to ensure that we can overcome the next downturn in the world economy more effectively than we have in the past. That is the first point that I should like to raise.
The second point is one that has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and that is the interest rate increase. Was the motivation for that increase a feeling that the economy was overheating, and that it would have been imposed in any event, or was it a reaction to the Government's failure to get through their proposal for VAT on fuel? We need to know what led the Government so quickly to introduce an interest rate increase. If it is due to the overheating of the economy, are they concerned about that seriously, and can we expect further increases in interest rates in the near future?
As to the specific measures taken, I believe that most would agree that if additional revenue had to be found, then it would best be found in areas where we should have fiscal disincentives—disincentives on smoking and drinking, and to deal with the problem of pollution from transport. I must say that I concur with the last question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, bearing in mind that this represented such a small proportion of the total revenues about which we are talking, was it necessary to consider raising additional taxes anyway?
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that this has been a most disturbing episode. We are not clear what is the Government's fiscal and financial strategy, and the way in which this has been dealt raises many further doubts.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by giving the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, a categoric assurance that obviously we intend to see the economy build up. That is what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making clear in his Statement. That is why he made the decisions that he did. I am somewhat surprised by the attitude of the two noble Lords, particularly, that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a distinguished economist. He seemed to imply that £200 million was a figure which was not worth bothering about. I have to explain to him that we are talking not about £200 million but
1028
about £1 billion. That is a fairly large sum, and I suspect that his attitude to those relatively insignificant sums—as he terms them—probably explains why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and why it is exceedingly unlikely that he will be ringing up the noble Lord to seek his advice. It probably goes some way towards explaining why all Chancellors of the Exchequer for the past 15 years have been Conservatives.
I note the noble Lord's request for a debate. He makes such requests on many occasions. I can say only that I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House heard his request. I should remind him that we do not debate the Budget, and this is to some extent an offshoot of that. We recently had a debate on the economy during the debates on the Queen's Speech. We normally have an opportunity to have a debate on Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Perhaps I may move on to the subject of VAT, and whether we thought that it was a good tax, and whether we shall be returning to it at some later stage. We believe in a broadly based tax system. We thought it was therefore sensible to go ahead with the second stage of VAT on fuel, not least because we provided considerable protection for pensioners, disabled people and other vulnerable groups. We should have preferred not to have increased excise duties, but we were left with no option. Obviously it is not without cost.
The most important thing is that we maintain healthy growth by sticking to the path mapped out for public borrowing. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall continue along that line. The noble Lord asked about the £100 million. As that was part of the compensation for the second stage of VAT on fuel and power, it is only right that it should have been withdrawn when the VAT vote was lost.
Both noble Lords asked about the rise in interest rates. Our monetary policy is based on the inflation outlook, and the half point rise yesterday was justified in those terms. We are committed, unlike noble Lords opposite, to avoiding the boom/bust cycle. It is important that we made that increase to maintain confidence in our finances. I do not wish to speculate on any future tax increases.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two small points. The noble Lord, with his Socialist interest in champagne, asked whether the increases announced would apply to it. I can assure him that the earlier reduction will still apply, because sparkling wine was taxed at a rate higher than similar products, including even stronger fortified wines, and that seemed wholly anomalous. Obviously the newly adjusted downwards rate will be adjusted upwards by the same percentage as other products and therefore the noble Lord will find a small increase of some 7 pence also on his bottle of champagne, but I dare say that he will manage to live with that.
Lastly, perhaps I may repeat that we are as committed as anyone to fighting genuine loopholes fully. We have done so on many occasions, and on occasions the party opposite has voted against those proposals. The Opposition's proposals put forward by the noble Lord's

1029
right honourable friend were not loopholes but taxes on business. I hope that that deals with most of the points put to me by the two noble Lords.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I warmly support the request of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that your Lordships' House be given an opportunity to debate this Statement in full. It is slightly absurd that, while the two party spokesmen opposite have a reasonable allowance of time, the rest of us are confined within 20 minutes. Given the immense importance of the subject and the wide variety of expertise in this House, it is absurd that we should be so confined. I beg my noble friend seriously to consider arranging a full day's debate on the Statement in order that all Members of your Lordships' House can contribute.
There was little, if any, mention in this Statement of the Government being in the situation in which they were placed as a result of the decision of another place, reducing public expenditure. Surely that would have been the best method of adjusting the balance. I remind my noble friend that this year legal aid is being increased by £100 million. If we are so hard pressed and in such difficulties that we have to increase taxes in order to achieve a balance, surely thought should be given substantially to cutting back on legal aid.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regard the first point that my noble friend made, I can only express a degree of sympathy. I recognise that there is considerable expertise in this House; we have as Members former Chancellors of the Exchequer, Chief Secretaries and writers of letters to The Times. I remember a great letter that was written some 15 years ago. I imagine that many people would care to debate these matters and my noble friend the Leader of the House heard what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. However, there are other occasions on which we can debate them.
My noble friend made a substantive point about reductions in public expenditure. My right honourable friend believed that after going through the public expenditure round it would be invidious to go back to departments to seek further reductions. The Government are committed to seeing a proportion of GNP that is taken up by public expenditure reduced over the years. That is what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to see. I shall not comment on particular departments, although my noble friend raised the question of legal aid. The general point is that it would have been invidious to go back to departments after having achieved a settlement.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the measures that have been outlined are a preferable alternative to the Government's policy? That is not a unique discovery on my part because for some months almost everyone in the country has been saying that. The alternative measures that have been announced are preferable to what was taking place.
1030
Will the Minister accept that the worrying aspect is that £1 billion is a great deal of money as part of a Budget, because a Budget is made up of billions of pounds? The Government got into this situation as a result of their refusal to listen to anything that anyone said in this connection. They were prepared to sacrifice their majority and turn the issue into a major crisis. Does the Minister agree that that is a mixture of stupidity and, even more frightening, a growing level of crass arrogance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally disagree with the noble Lord. He is incorrect in making such assertions. We believed that in a broadly-based taxed system it was right to go ahead with the second stage of VAT on fuel, not least because we were offering the appropriate protection to the various vulnerable groups. Obviously, others thought otherwise and therefore, having lost the vote, my right honourable friend said that he would not go ahead with the increase. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, my right honourable friend considers £1 billion to be a fairly significant sum. That hole had to be plugged and that is why my right honourable friend came forward with the proposals that I announced in the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend said that he wished to help the Government. I assure the Government that the only way in which I wish to help them is out of office, and the sooner that that happens the better things will be for this country and its taxpayers. I must say to my noble friend that if he expects the Government to listen to him, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. They do not even listen to the chairman and vice-chairman of the Tory Party. I understand that the chairman advised the Government that the introduction of the further 9.5 per cent. VAT on fuel would amount almost to political suicide. However, the Government went ahead which was, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, an act of sheer stupidity. Unfortunately, the country is having to reap the whirlwind of the seeds that the Government have sown.
Now the people are faced with a double whammy. First, their taxes are being increased and, secondly, perhaps as a matter of revenge, interest rates are being increased. Let us think about that and understand that, although the Government say that they are in favour of the family, the Budget has hit married couples. There has been a reduction in the married man's allowance and home buyers will be hit a second time by the increase in interest rates. It is all completely unnecessary.
Will the Minister confirm that this year taxation will increase by £26.4 million? Will he also confirm that, if the Chancellor increased the higher tax rate and adopted the measures that were put forward by my noble friend, he would not have to increase the cost of living and put burdens on those in our community who are already worse off?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in one small particular. He was correct in saying that his noble friend is living in cloud cuckoo land. I totally and utterly reject his allegation that interest rates were increased out of revenge against—I am not sure against

1031
whom it was supposed to be. Interest rates were increased for the reasons that I gave and not out of revenge.
I cannot confirm the noble Lord's figures about the increase in taxes. I am grateful to him for pointing to the right page in the Red Book. He knows perfectly well that taxes had to be increased in order to reduce the amount of borrowing. The noble Lord and, for all I know, his party are wedded to the idea of borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. However, that is not the way out. In the end, the gap had to be narrowed and there are two ways of doing that; the first is by having firm control of public expenditure, which we have; and the second is by increasing taxes.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I too ask the Government—my noble friend the Leader of the House is in his place—to consider an early debate on this matter. I do so not necessarily for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter but because some of us believe that the Government were right about the Budget, right about the interest rate and right about the proposals that they have brought forward today. One would not obtain that impression from listening to these questions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only say that I am very, very grateful to my noble friend for making the point that the Government were right, although misguided people on the other side in the other place voted against certain parts of the Budget. I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will have noted what my noble friend Lord Aldington said; namely, that it might be appropriate for us to have an early debate so that we can make the Government's case loud and clear and can demonstrate that this was a good Budget sadly led astray by others.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister has read the Government's Red Book. I am glad that he has it with him. Perhaps he will look at paragraph 4.32 of it. It is true that £1 billion is quite a lot of money, but to pretend that you can carry out a Budget with that degree of accuracy is, frankly, misleading.
As we see from the paragraph to which I have referred, the plain fact is that there is an estimated £10.5 billion margin of error in the public sector borrowing requirement. Therefore, is not the real mistake that the Government believed their own Whips and that they could get through the increase in VAT to 17.5 per cent.? They should have asked the Whips whether they can count properly because they obviously counted wrongly. For factual reasons, apart from how damaging it would be to ordinary people, as we have heard, they should not have proposed such an increase. Why on earth did they go ahead with that proposal, given the huge margin of error, when they did not need to?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am reminded of the saying, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are spending serious money". I do not agree with the noble Lord. There was a gap there. I accept that there are margins of error; but if one takes out £1 billion, which in effect is what has happened as a result of the
1032
vote, it is quite right that the Chancellor should try to put it back and that is what he has tried to do in a manner which is the least damaging possible.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is essential in running a sound economy to keep control of the public sector borrowing requirement? I hope that my noble friend will agree that my right honourable friend could have increased the public sector borrowing requirement by £1 billion and that would probably have gone through unnoticed. On the other hand, he could have robbed the contingency reserve fund of £1 billion and not increased taxes. But in taking the decision that public sector borrowing is so essential, I believe that my right honourable friend has done the courageous thing and has increased taxation in order to make up that loss of £1 billion. Does my noble friend agree with me that that is a sounder way of running the economy rather than running into debt?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree totally with my noble friend. I am sure that he will understand when I say that it is unlikely that noble Lords opposite will agree with my noble friend and me on this matter. As he suggests, they would either have borrowed more or raided this fund or that fund. However, the sensible approach is that adopted by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the reference that was made in the Statement to public expenditure in the year 1996–97? Perhaps I may draw attention to the very serious situation which is affecting most local authorities, whatever their political complexion. They are now finding the greatest difficulty in financing education, housing and social services, which are the services that really affect people living in desperate conditions. Therefore, perhaps I may put in a plea in advance that if the Government are to look again at reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, which I understand, that they take into account the very real difficulties now affecting local authorities and therefore affecting many millions of deserving people in this country.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made quite clear in the Statement, we are committed where possible to keeping down public expenditure. We have a very good record in that regard. But he made it quite clear also that we are committed to providing essential services. That is why he cited just two examples: there has been increased provision for both the police and the National Health Service. I am sure that my right honourable friend will note what the noble Lord has said about anxieties in relation to local authorities. But all parts of government, in one form or another, will be subject to some constraints while we remain committed to providing all essential services.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the Chancellor was committed to the VAT increase on fuel by his predecessor and had he not made an attempt to fulfil that commitment, the very same people who now condemn him for stupidity and arrogance would be the first to condemn him for

1033
weakness and breaking promises? Failure to attempt to fulfil that commitment would also have had a very damaging effect on the credibility of the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. Another place had voted on that matter. That VAT increase had been voted through, I believe, on four occasions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, many of your Lordships will be rather puzzled by the noble Lord's insistence that £200 million or £300 million are extremely important. I was very struck by that remark because it seems a little odd in view of the fact that the Government had a suicide pact on the necessity for increasing public expenditure to £3.5 billion per annum to be paid out to the European Community. A three-line Whip was put on that vote to increase public expenditure, and indeed it became a vote of confidence. Surely there must be a sense of proportion somewhere. Why do not the Government consider giving a complete rethink to this whole matter, rather than leaving it to a lot of technicians within the Treasury whose errors in the past have been so astronomical that even the Government themselves have found it necessary to reduce their number?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The noble Lord will have to accept that I think that the £200 million or £300 million to which the noble Lord referred is a significant sum, as is £1 billion. I shall be delighted if the noble Lord wishes to debate the issue of own resources. There will be ample opportunity to do that in due course. I believe that the decision made in Edinburgh was good. That has kept down the increases and the noble Lord should be grateful for that. Perhaps he will remember that the Commission was seeking something like £1.37 billion; but, as a result of the negotiations of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that was kept down to £1.27 billion. That was a decision which was generally welcomed by all sides of both Houses and, for all I know, by the noble Lord himself.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that yesterday my noble friend Lord Trefgarne introduced a debate in your Lordships' House on the subject of small and medium-sized businesses, with special reference to the manufacturing sector? In the course of that debate, my noble friend Lord Ferrers was asked to pass on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the view that it would be disastrous for the Government to take the easy option of increasing VAT by 0.5 per cent. across the board. Therefore, the Government are to be congratulated for not taking that easy option.
Secondly, does my noble friend recall that when VAT on domestic fuel and power was originally suggested and introduced at the rate of 8 per cent., part of the rationale for that was that it was a carbon tax? Does my noble friend consider that VAT on domestic fuel and
1034
power at 8 per cent. plus the additional taxes on road fuel will be a suitable equivalent to the proposed EC carbon tax?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with regard to the first point raised by my noble friend, I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer always takes considerable note of what is said in debates in this House. I am sure that he noted the comments to which my noble friend referred in the debate introduced yesterday by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
In relation to his second point, even with the increases now of only 8 per cent. in VAT on fuel, prices for both electricity and gas have come down over the past few years in real terms, even after taking into account that 8 per cent.

Visas and Border Controls: ECC Report
4.30 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Slynn of Hadley rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Visas and Control of External Borders of the Member States (14th Report, HL Paper 78).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the report referred to in the Motion has one unusual feature. Your Lordships are well aware that the European Union now has what are appropriately, or otherwise, called three pillars. The first of those pillars consists of measures adopted by the Council and the Commission of the Community broadly as has been done until now. The second and third of those pillars are very different. They involve agreement by member states dealing with foreign affairs and security matters on the one hand and on the other hand home affairs and justice.
In the report we are concerned with a proposed draft regulation under the Community pillar dealing with visas and a proposal for a convention to be adopted by member states on persons who cross the external frontiers of the Community. That proposed convention is not made under the Community pillar but under Article K.3(2) (c) of the justice and home affairs pillar. This is the first time that the Select Committee has had to consider a proposal under the home affairs and justice pillar.
Our inquiry has shown that there can be difficulties in the overlap between proposals in a related area which comes under the two pillars. I am not sure whether "under" is the right word; there should perhaps be some other word as it is "pillar" and not "pillow". However, I shall use the phrase "under the pillar" in the hope that your Lordships will understand what I mean.
Our inquiry revealed even more a matter which the Select Committee has stressed throughout; namely, that the committee should be able to scrutinise a proposed draft text at an early stage rather than that the committee should be confined to considering proposals at a late stage when the United Kingdom is considering ratifying the conventions. To comment at that stage may well be to whistle in the wind or may lead to the whole process beginning again in a very unsatisfactory way.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with the draft external frontiers convention. It has had a somewhat curious history. Its negotiation began in 1991, but it ran into difficulties because Spain and the United Kingdom were not able to agree about the position of Gibraltar. After the Treaty of Union, it was realised that some of the matters in the proposed convention would have to be transferred to the regulation under the Community pillar.
The basic object of the convention is to lay down rules which will apply to persons who are not Union citizens and who are not, broadly speaking, nationals of a member state who want to cross the external frontiers of the Community. It is broadly agreed that there must be rules based on common criteria to cover such persons and rules which will involve close co-operation among the member states. The target is to strike a balance between eliminating threats to public security and public safety in the member states and at the same time preserving such openness for the rest of the world as is possible.
There are many detailed rules in the draft convention about the establishment of crossing points, the surveillance of frontiers, residence permits and visas. I propose to say nothing about them because I think that it would be wrong to detain your Lordships with a discussion of that kind of detail. Perhaps I may mention just four matters which seem to me to be issues of principle and issues of considerable importance.
One element of the convention, and an important part of it, is the preparation of a joint list for all member states of persons whom all the member states must refuse entry if they seek to come into the Community. That joint list is to consist of names which are notified by the member states and the decision as to whether a person shall be placed on the list is to be based on the threat which that person may represent to the public policy or national security of the member states. The decision to put forward a name is to be taken in accordance with national procedures on account of a number of factors, such as that the person in question has served a custodial sentence of more than one year.
It is obvious that, even now, before the convention is adopted, member states may under their own rules refuse entry to undesirable third-country persons who wish to come into their states. The difference in the new proposal is that, if someone is put on the list, he must be refused entry to all member states. If a businessman now wants to come to Paris and he is on the French exclusion list, he can presumably go to Brussels and his clients will go there to see him. Under the new proposed convention, he would not be able to go anywhere into the Community if he had got on to the list. There is no doubt that, in the view of the committee, the provision of a list is justified when the right people find themselves on the list.
However, the categories of persons who may be put on the list include two matters which gave us concern. The first is where there is information to the effect that the person concerned has committed a serious crime—that is, not a conviction but merely information to the effect that the person has committed a serious crime; and, perhaps even more general, where there are serious
1036
grounds for believing that a person is planning to commit a serious crime or that he represents a threat to the public security of a state.
It is idle to pretend that, in the process of people being nominated and their names then being notified to the central list, mistakes could not happen. It cannot be ruled out that names will be put forward by other individuals, even maliciously, with the result that someone may get on to the list who really should not be there at all. A number of our witnesses expressed very serious concern about that possibility. As a result, we think that it is essential that an effective remedy must be provided to give protection against unfair, improper exclusion from the Community and that, at the very least, a person should know which state has put him on the central list.
It is our view that there should also be a remedy in national courts against such wrongful inclusion on the list and against the withdrawal of a residence permit. We do not believe that that should be left to chance. We think that it should either be in the convention or that it should be included in measures adopted to give effect to the convention. It is our recommendation that one of those two courses should be followed.
The second item is very different. Article 6 of the convention provides that, where a passenger comes into Community territory by air from a third state and is going to transfer at the airport where he lands to an aeroplane to take him to another state, he should be subject to entry conditions and entry control at the airport where he first lands. Therefore, if someone comes to London who is going to Paris, the proposal is that he should be controlled in London and if someone is going to Paris and then on to Berlin he should be controlled in Paris.
That may work where infra-Community state flights are treated as domestic flights. It may not work in countries like the United Kingdom, Ireland or Denmark where they are not so treated. But it seems to the committee that this does not in any view take account of the special position of a hub airport like London where passengers frequently land from all parts of the world in order to transfer to other flights and where they are kept on the air side of immigration controls without any check on their immigration status, and where they are not treated as having entered the United Kingdom.
The committee considers that this proposal needs radical reconsideration by the Council. It ought to be looked at again in view of the special status of London Airport. It may not be unique, but it is the most striking example of this kind of problem. But even if the proposal is to be maintained, the committee recommends that adequate time should be given for the very substantial restructuring and changes in the infrastructure which may have to be adopted at the airport. The proposal at the moment gives far too little notice to the airport authorities.
Thirdly—I can take this more shortly—Article 14 of the convention deals with the responsibility of carriers who bring persons into the United Kingdom or into the Community when they do not have either the necessary travel documents or the necessary visas. The convention proposes to impose penalties upon such carriers even

1037
where there is not negligence, and penalties which go beyond the responsibility simply to take them back or to pay for their accommodation in the meantime. It seems to the committee that that is in conflict with Article 9 of the Chicago Convention which imposes liability only where the carrier has been negligent.
The committee takes the view that the same should be the position in this draft convention and, moreover, that it is particularly important that airport officials, airline officials and immigration officers should be aware of responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights and under the Geneva Convention relating to refugees to ensure that people are not sent back when they are quite genuinely asking to be admitted to a member state because of a well founded fear of persecution for political reasons. What we propose in this area, on the basis of very serious and impressive evidence given to us, was that the appropriate officials and administrators should be made very aware of the dangers which this kind of provision can open up.
Finally, as far as the convention is concerned, I come to a different topic and one of general importance. Because this is a treaty between the member states and not a Community measure, the European Court of Justice does not automatically have jurisdiction to deal with disputes about the interpretation of the convention or disputes which may arise out of its administration. However, there is provision in the treaty for the European Court to be given jurisdiction to interpret and to rule on disputes regarding the application. When this convention was first proposed, there was no proposal to include jurisdiction for the European Court, but the Commission has come to the view that it would be appropriate to provide for a limited jurisdiction; for the power of a national judge, who is dealing with a contention that the convention has been violated if the convention is part of domestic law, to refer that question of interpretation to the European Court, and for both the Commission and member states to take proceedings against other member states in the Community.
We of course understand that this is to be an international treaty and not a Community measure. We also recognise, because of the variety of views on our committee, that there can be different attitudes to this particular question. But after very considerable discussion, we came to the conclusion that this is the sort of measure in which the European Court of Justice could play a valuable role. All our witnesses took the view that it was desirable that the European Court should have this kind of jurisdiction. Their evidence, I suggest, is not to be disregarded. We were not persuaded—I certainly was not persuaded—by Home Office arguments that the convention is largely Executive and administrative in character and that disputes can be resolved by officials or by the Council of the member states.
As I see it, the European Court is the one way—the best possible way—in which this convention can be most effectively applied uniformly in the Community. This is not to be seen as a way of interfering here; it is to be seen, I submit, as a way of ensuring that all the
1038
member states carry out their obligations under the convention in the same way. Without some form of central ruling on interpretation or on disputes, I fail to see how that can happen. It was of notable interest that the witness from the European Parliament was wholly in favour of this proposal and thought it quite absurd that the member states should have to go to the International Court of Justice at the Hague if there was a dispute of that kind. We therefore recommend that the European Court of Justice should have jurisdiction as proposed by the Commission.
Finally, I turn to the regulation which I can deal with much more briefly. There are two important issues of competence and two short matters of practical application. Article 100c of the treaty deals with the approximation of laws, and it provides very specifically that the Council shall determine the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when they cross one of the external frontiers of the Community.
On the other hand Article K deals generally with asylum policy, the crossing of external borders and with policy dealing with nationals of third countries including conditions of entry and residence. Article 1(1) of the regulation clearly falls inside Article 100c. It provides a list of those third countries whose nationals must have a visa. There can be no challenge, I suspect, to that. Article 1(2), however, gives the Council power to list countries whose nationals are exempted from the need to have visas. In common sense it might be said that the second is a corollary of the first, and if the Council may make a list of those who need visas, it may make a list of those who do not need visas. However, we came to the conclusion that if this had been intended in Article 100c of the treaty, the article would have followed the draft provision in the pre-existing proposed convention where the words were,
"the arrangement shall determine whether or not"
a visa is required by the nationals of a particular member state.
Had that change not taken place, I, for my part, would have accepted that the one was the corollary of the other. But in the light of the change in the language from the earlier convention the committee came to the conclusion that this was a very specific provision and that if states are to be exempted, this must be put into the convention and not into the regulation.
The other point which I wish to make, and which I believe is of some importance, concerns Article 2. Article 2 provides that member states shall not be entitled to require a visa of a person who seeks to cross their external frontiers and who already holds a visa issued by another member state, if that visa is valid throughout the Community. Therefore, in the United Kingdom we could not refuse entry to someone who had a visa from Germany or Greece if that visa was valid throughout the Community.
We came to the conclusion that that does not fall within the limited words of Article 100c. That provision was itself a compromise between those who wanted these matters to be under the Community pillar and those who wanted it to be under the home affairs and justice pillar. We do not find it possible to construe

1039
Article 100c as allowing Article 2 of the regulation to stand. It may well be a desirable provision, but it should go into the convention.
On that basis, we have come to the view that both those provisions in Article 1(2) and in Article 2 of the proposed regulation are not within the competence of the Community and that they should be put into the convention.
The proposed regulation covers transit visas. We consider that to be wholly inappropriate. We think that the list which has been drawn up of countries whose nationals must have visas is inordinately long. Too much should not be attached to that. There is nothing sinister about it. It was a Commission proposal which was intended to initiate discussion, even though it is somewhat extensive. In the view of the committee there is no doubt that it should be shortened. There seems to be no justification for the inclusion of some Commonwealth countries on the list as countries whose nationals must have visas if they come to the Community, especially as other Commonwealth countries are not on the list.
I am sorry that I have taken some time. However, this is a matter of considerable importance in the Community. My colleagues in Sub-Committee E who conducted the inquiry and I are greatly indebted to our legal adviser, Mrs. Eileen Denza, for her work and guidance in preparing our report, and to our Clerk, Mr. Michael Pownall, and those who gave evidence to us. For many of them it involved considerable time and effort, on what are important questions. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Visas and Control of External Borders of the Member States (14th Report, H.L. Paper 78).—(Lord Slynn of Hadley.)
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have read the committee's admirable report with great interest. Members of the committee are best placed to make informed comment, and I feel rather shy about speaking so early in the debate. However, I wish to make two or three points.
First, I strongly support the last conclusion in paragraph 121 of the report on the question of the negative visa list. The inclusion of Commonwealth countries such as Barbados, Belize, India, Pakistan, the Solomons, Botswana and Zambia, to name only a few, among the countries requiring visas for entry would be deeply damaging to our interests and would be taken as further proof by the Commonwealth that our European dimension is paramount and our Commonwealth membership unimportant. It is also simply not sensible, since so many of our visitors are Commonwealth visitors.
I agree with many of the arguments put forward by the JCWI and the ILPA. The distinctions made between Commonwealth countries seem both invidious and mysterious. It is still more mysterious that, as they point out, no countries in Latin America appear on the list despite their drug culture in some cases (Colombia, for instance) and their abuse of human rights (Guatemala).
1040
In the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in June 1993 I warned that Article 100c and Articles K.1, K.3 and K.9 would have serious implications for our independence of action. I believe that I was right. I was concerned then about our Commonwealth relationships and about the threat to our national security which the greatly extended powers of the Commission to initiate further action under qualified majority voting after 1996 would pose. I still feel that Article 100c(5), which pays lip service to the need for member states to be able to safeguard internal security, is negated by Article 100c(6) which allows Article 100c to apply to other areas under Article K.9.
I also strongly support paragraphs 109 and 110 of the conclusions. I find it amazing that in the climate of today's Europe, with the spreading activity of, for instance, the Russian mafia and international drug rings, and given the porous and inadequately policed external frontiers in many cases, there should be any serious intention to abolish controls at internal borders, especially in the case of the UK which has no system of internal identity cards, and given the fact that even in 1991, as I said in the 1993 debate, there was and is a thriving trade in the forging of EC passports. Of 591 persons refused entry at one English port alone in 1991 because of forged documents, 524 had forged EC documents.
I agree with the committee that it will still be necessary to control the movement of people across internal frontiers where a member state deems it right to do so. I wish they all did. Equally, I strongly support the recommendation in paragraph 110 that the conventions recommended by the Council:
"should reflect the nature of these conventions as international agreements which individual Member States may choose whether to ratify or not".
Two tendencies have become manifest in the Commission's conduct of affairs, and indeed to some extent that of the Council of member states. The first has been a lack of transparency. For instance, as the committee says in paragraph 74, the inter-governmental negotiations leading to the political agreement of June 1991 on the external frontiers convention took place in secret and the text agreed, which was of obvious importance for European integration, was not laid before the UK Parliament for a further year. The other tendency is towards a creeping assumption of even more powers.
The proposals are now out in the open, and that is good, but we now need to have the political will and the good sense to say in good time whether we agree to what is proposed. Qualified majority voting does not make it easier, but we should retain unequivocally our right not to ratify if necessary. Moreover, we must allow no precedents to be set for this pillar which could have an adverse impact on the 1996 discussions on the defence, security and foreign affairs pillars. Reminding the Commission that we retain our right to ratify and to enter into inter-governmental treaties can only be beneficial. Also, we must not allow the aim of harmonisation to override the individual needs and

1041
duties of member countries and the propriety of inter-governmental rather than supragovernmental policies.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I venture to intervene to emphasise one subject about which concern was expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. I do so lest it be thought that, if no other member of Sub-Committee E were to intervene, we thought of the matter lightly. The fact that I do not echo all that the noble and learned Lord said about the other matters of concern does not entail that we thought lightly about those.
The matter about which I want to express concern and to echo the concern of the noble and learned Lord is the joint list. As I may have mentioned in your Lordships' House previously, I have supported closer integration in Europe for many years —since before the idea was as widely accepted as it is now. I can claim to have been a Christian before Constantine. Therefore, I have no difficulty in supporting the concept of the free movement of persons, although I fully take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that there are some matters about which we need to exercise control at internal frontiers. If we are to have the free movement of persons, I accept that a necessary consequence is that there should be co-ordination in the control of external borders. But it is simply stating the obvious to point out that the greater the area and the population over which an authority exercises control, the greater the power of that authority over individuals, and the greater the degree to which individuals are at its mercy. It is not simply that an authority exercises power over more individuals; its power over each individual is so much the greater.
We have an example of that. Article 7 of the draft convention provides that a person may be denied entry to the territories of member states if he represents a threat to the public policy, national security or international relations of member states. Article 10 provides for the making of a list of persons who are thought to pose such a threat. It is to be a joint list, and each member state may require that the names of specific persons shall be included in the list. The criteria for including a name on the list are set out in the draft article, Article 7, but the decision whether a particular person falls within those criteria is entirely within the judgment of each member state.
When Mr. de Lobkowicz, head of the unit dealing with the subject in the European Commission, gave evidence to the sub-committee—his evidence is set out at page 61 and the following pages of the minutes of evidence—he made it clear that such a decision was seen as falling within the principle of subsidiarity. Each state would provide such safeguards as it thinks fit against the wrongful inclusion of a person on the list, but if a state submits a name there is no further sieve, and there is no further safeguard.
In effect, the list will be an amalgam of all the national lists. It will represent the exercise of power over more individuals than any national list. But, more
1042
importantly, the consequences for any individual will be so much the greater. He will be precluded from entering any of the member states. If France requires an individual to be added to the list, not only will he be precluded from entering France, he will be precluded from entering the United Kingdom or any of the other member states.
Admittedly, there is a proposed exception in relation to visas, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out. If a specific country is persuaded that it is important that an individual on the list should visit its territory for one of the purposes specified, it may issue a visa limited to that territory. But the individual must find means to activate a specific exception, and it is clearly a narrow list of exceptions.
I was surprised to learn that the safeguards against the wrongful inclusion of someone's name are regarded as wholly a matter for the member state which submits the name. It was said to fall within the principle of subsidiarity. It seems a curious application of subsidiarity that France may preclude a United Kingdom national from entering Germany.
The effect of what is proposed is that the authority which exercises that wide power over so many individuals is not the Commission, nor the Council. It is not an authority of the Union at all. If it were, we could address the safeguards which may be required to ensure accountability. I make no secret of the fact that I should like to see the European institutions made more accountable. Because there are those who would like to see the nation states of Europe have more power, and the Union less power, we have arrived at a compromise which probably represents the worst of all worlds. We have institutions which exercise wide powers but have a reluctance to entrust the European Parliament and the European Court with the power to control them.
The question of the jurisdiction of the European Court was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. I respectfully agree with what he said. But that is not the problem in the case that we are discussing. The authority which exercises such wide power over so many individuals is in fact each nation state. I suspect that that may represent a pattern which we may find in the future in third pillar conventions.
In paragraph 83 of our report, we say that we are concerned at the imprecision of the grounds on which a member state may add a name to the list. I refer in particular to the two grounds mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. One ground is,
"information to the effect that the person concerned has committed a serious crime".
It does not even need to be reliable information. There is nothing in the draft convention to indicate that an individual whose name is on the list should be told that his name is on the list. If he applies for a visa, and is refused, he will know that he has been refused a visa. But he may not require a visa to make the journey that he has in mind. He may arrive at Heathrow at 8.30 for an important meeting in central London at 10.30 and either may be held for two hours while being interrogated or, more probably, simply sent back on the

1043
next aircraft. The potential unfairness is exacerbated if the individual is not told what is happening until it is too late to make alternative arrangements.
I understand, as we state in the report, that an individual will be protected by Article 20 of the Convention on the European Information System. However, that leaves him largely at the mercy of the member state, "before which he invokes" his right of access to the information. That may not even be his own state, because the right to be exercised is,
"in accordance with the law of the member state".
For the reasons set out in paragraph 85 of the report, I believe that there is a need for some safeguards within the convention or elsewhere. An individual refused entry because his name is on the list should have a right to be told which member state has required his inclusion and be accorded a right judicially to challenge his inclusion.
These are worrying matters for anyone who cares for civil liberties. But they are particularly worrying as an example of what I believe we may expect from third pillar conventions. There may be a need for co-ordination in a particular area of activity, but it cannot be addressed unless every nation state is carried along, and safeguards for individuals may be the negotiable trade off. What emerges may represent the lowest common denominator among the member states.
I hope that I may transpire to be unduly pessimistic. But so often, it is when I am most pessimistic that I transpire to be right.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Rennell: My Lords, I should like to speak on the issue of short stay visas for non-member nationals visiting the UK. At the moment, a citizen of Tashkent in Uzbekistan who wants to visit the United Kingdom has to apply to Moscow for his visa, with all the appropriate documents. In addition, he is then required to visit the British Embassy in Moscow for an interview. That is a round trip to a foreign country of more than 4,000 miles. It is expensive and time consuming. The United States, France, Germany, and Israel, and other major and minor trading companies have visa issuing facilities in Tashkent. UK companies are at a disadvantage, in particular at a time when trade with Uzbekistan and other Russian and CIS countries is growing quickly.
We have a reputation to uphold. Our embassies and consular offices are a haven for our citizens worldwide. I believe that our foreign friends also have their perception of help and friendliness when they visit our offices abroad. My reason for speaking today is to ask my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench for his consideration that, in addition to the report that we are discussing today, Her Majesty's Government will not forget the high reputation for fairness and efficiency which our diplomatic representatives have. I ask that the Government ensure that our consular visa services retain that reputation.
I should like to give an example of my concern. A British company with offices in Moscow and Tashkent wanted to bring a young Uzbek trainee employee to the UK for basic training and a short English course. Having
1044
submitted all the necessary application forms, he visited the consular section of the British Embassy in Moscow—a round trip, as I said before, of 4,000 miles—and was sent back without a visa because, although he had his Russian passport, he did not have his local internal passport. He was given a second appointment a month later. At that stage, three weeks before his next interview, a comprehensive letter was written to the consular section in Moscow by the sponsoring British company stating the full reasons for the visa application, giving the reference number of the application and enclosing a copy of a letter from the English school where the trainee would be studying.
When the unfortunate Mr. Khafizov, who spoke little or no English and had probably never been out of his country before, arrived for the second time in front of the firm but fair immigration officer, he must have had a very hard time. The report of the interview reads as follows:
"Your original application and invitation to the UK"—
this was for a one-month visa—
"was for a business visit, it was changed to short term studies only after you had been invited for a further interview. You state that you do not know why the sponsoring company has invited you to study English, the only reason you could give was that maybe the president of the company just liked you. Furthermore you can not explain why you need to study English or why you specifically need to study in the UK other than that you like English. There is no indication that English is necessary for your employment, in fact quite the contrary as you state that your employer is not sending you to the UK and not sponsoring the studies. I also have to take into account the fact that you have not yet applied for leave from your employment to cover the period of your studies. I note that you state that you have no plans for after these studies which indicates to me that you do not intend to return to your current employment, this is further indicated by your statement that you may work for the sponsoring company but you are unable to provide a written offer of employment. Taking account of all the above I am not satisfied that you are a genuine student who will leave the UK after the 1 month period stated.
I am therefore not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking entry for the purpose and for the period as stated by you.
I therefore refuse your application".
At the bottom the gentleman has signed the document, which states that the contents have also been explained to him in Russian.
I was rather shocked to read what seemed to me a rather bullying sort of interview. Here was a person who could not speak English; he was not accompanied by a friend or by his own interpreter; and he was probably unaware of the interpretations of the questions that were put to him. One can also only presume that the explanatory letter from the sponsoring company had been mislaid and that it was certainly not read by the interviewing officer.
I am of course aware that it is all too easy to find faults. There is no doubt that the visa office in Moscow is under great pressure. It may be no great consolation to know that we are not alone in this problem. The United States Ambassador in Moscow recently defended his embassy against Russian accusations of rudeness. Nonetheless, he promised to increase personnel and space in order to speed up the visa issuing process. In the Soviet era, the US embassy dealt with 3,000 to 4,000 visa applications a year. Today, more than 130,000

1045
applications are filed annually. I have no doubt that our Moscow embassy is faced with a similar huge explosion of applications.
I was very pleased to read in a Written Answer from my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey that there are plans to commence visa services in Uzebekistan soon—indeed, it is hoped no later than the first quarter of 1995. Those plans, together with further visa issuing facilities in Belarus and other CIS countries, will help enormously in relieving the strain on Moscow's resources.
Finally, I ask my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry to ensure that during the careful study of the report that is in front of us today we do not lose sight of the importance of the United Kingdom's good reputation for providing an expanding, efficient and friendly visa issuing facility.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, this report is very useful, and it throws light on an area of policy which is not generally all that well understood. It incidentally also throws light on European decision-making processes. I have long argued that some areas of policy that have hitherto been very much within the national domain are increasingly being determined by Brussels. I refer, for example, to policy on asylum seekers and refugees.
Perhaps I may turn to a number of concerns that are highlighted by this report, and first, the secrecy with which these decisions are made or approached in Brussels. Although today we have a chance to talk about the convention, had it not been for the issue of Gibraltar which gave rise to its delay, it might well have been implemented, signed, sealed and settled before we had had a chance to consider some of the details. The secrecy that surrounds some decision-making by the Council of Ministers is undesirable. It lacks accountability and is essentially undemocratic. We ought to encourage more openness and transparency. Even if we look at measures which I have found undesirable, such as the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, at least that had the benefit of procedures which were open, which could be understood and on which every individual citizen of this country could Make his or her views known to politicians.
In contrast, the lack of transparency that emanates from Brussels precludes this type of approach. In the past we have had interesting leaks. The Guardian occasionally carries very interesting stories about matters which are being kept secret. But surely we should not have to rely on leaks in order to keep ourselves informed as to what is under discussion.
I know that the official answer is that the Government never reveal the details of negotiations concerning international treaties. But I would argue that when we deal with matters which have large elements of human rights in them and which are in effect being dealt with in Brussels instead of being initiated here, then the argument that international treaties should not be, as it were, open to scrutiny, falls down. I suggest that it should not be applied in instances such as this.
1046
Not only is there secrecy and a lack of openness and transparency; the report also makes it clear that some of the procedures are complicated and that indeed there is uncertainty in respect of some of the procedures. Some of the witnesses disagreed with each other about their interpretation of some procedures—they disagreed, for example, on whether it was a treaty or a convention. The report makes clear that there must be doubts about the links between the Dublin Convention, the Schengen Agreement, to which Britain is not a party, the new convention which may or may not be implemented, depending upon the Gibraltar issue, and indeed other matters of policy which European countries have decided, some of which have been implemented through national parliaments.
I would argue that, even if the future course is for the Council of Ministers to play the same part that it does now—whether that should be the case is a subject for a different debate—I would urge that the Council of Ministers should make itself more open to scrutiny and that it should make its proceedings known to a wider public. I believe that when Denmark took the presidency after the United Kingdom, the Danish Government were quite sympathetic to the idea of more openness, but other countries did not like that idea too much.
I now turn to two specific issues which have already been mentioned in the course of this debate. The first is the joint list. I very much agree with the criticisms that were made of it by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. Perhaps I may raise one or two further issues in relation to that list. I welcome the fact that the report says that if a person is on the list, he or she will be entitled to speedy judicial remedy in the state which put him or her on the list. It follows that it must be made known to that person which was the state which did so.
But let us consider the United Kingdom. We do not have any remedy. Other countries may be better than we are. My understanding is that we do not have any remedy at all. The last remedy that existed was appeal against a refusal of a visa for visitors or students. That was taken away by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act. So we do not have any remedy. The undertaking is rather hollow so far as this country is concerned, even if it is a valid undertaking with regard to other countries of the European Union.
But the criticism goes further than that. If an individual is refused—the previous speaker gave a dramatic instance of such a refusal—he may be refused even if he is not on the stop list but simply because immigration officials have decided that it is not appropriate for him to come to this country. So there is a wider list of people who are refused than the stop list itself. Does such a refusal mean that an individual will automatically be put on the Europe-wide stop list? There is a certain logic which says that that should be the case, but I hope that the answer is otherwise.
In any case, we know very little about our own stop list. I tried to find out about it. I visited Heathrow Airport years ago and was shown round by immigration officials. I saw the black book but I was not allowed to get within three or four feet of it or even allowed to know how many names it contained. But someone told me—I picked it up somewhere —that there are about

1047
6,000 names on our stop list. No doubt the Minister will neither confirm nor deny it. It is a difficult area and one which I believe poses a threat to civil liberties.
I turn to the carriers' liability Act and fines on passengers who arrive without proper documentation. The report says—I welcome it—that primacy should be given to the European Convention on Human Rights and to the refugee convention. But that might be difficult to achieve in practice. I am rather more familiar with the refugee convention. If an individual is living in a country where the government is persecuting him, it is extremely difficult for him to apply for a passport from that government. One only has to think of an Iraqi Kurd applying for a visa to the regime in Baghdad. It is absurd. Many people who are persecuted simply cannot get passports. Even if they happen to have a passport in the first place, it is very difficult when facing persecution or in fear for one's safety to hang about waiting for some other country to issue a visa.
In that situation, individuals do what any Member of this House would do. Let us be honest—if our lives were in peril, we would get forged documents, would we not? Yet, preventing the owner of such a document boarding a plane is precisely what the carriers' liability Act is meant to do. So there is the paradoxical situation that the only way of escape for an individual may be a forged document or a forged visa; but here is legislation intended to stop anyone boarding a plane with such a document. I suggest that there is a Catch-22 situation, and it is hard to argue for the primacy of the refugee convention. I fear that this type of legislation makes it very difficult for people in countries where there is a great deal of persecution to escape and find safety elsewhere.
I conclude by welcoming the Select Committee's proposals with regard to the European Court of Justice. It seems to me that if there is to be secrecy, lack of openness and lack of transparency, then at the very least there should be certain safeguards. There may be other models for safeguards, but I believe that the European Court of Justice represents, in the arguments of the Select Committee, a welcome safeguard. I hope that that is a message that will go from this House to the Government. It is a desirable step forward.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Select Committee deserves our gratitude for having produced such a cogent and compelling report. It raises a number of important issues which merit careful consideration. They have been fairly and carefully considered in this concise and well focused debate. There seems to be a wide consensus of view, to which I shall add in my remarks.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, observed at the outset that this is the first time that the Select Committee has examined a proposal for an international convention under negotiation within the justice and home affairs pillar of the Europeart, Union. Previous negotiations regarding external frontiers took place in secret. By contrast, these proposals of the Commission are open to scrutiny by national parliaments and anyone else who is interested. I am sure
1048
that all noble Lords will agree that that is a most welcome development—a more open approach to democratic parliamentary scrutiny of the decision-making process. It originated with the Commission and is a much more open approach than has traditionally been permitted to citizens of this country by successive governments when negotiating treaties in the exercise of their prerogative powers.
The problem of secrecy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred, is surely important. But it is not the fault of the Brussels Commission. It is the responsibility of governments. I am slightly torn on this issue. Much as I press for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty-making power of government, I am reminded that it was Senator Bricker of the United States, whose notorious amendment has led to an extremely insular and reactionary approach in which Congress frequently overscrutinises what the Executive branch does in that area, in a way that liberals like myself deplore. Having said that, I am undoubtedly on the side of those who wish for effective parliamentary scrutiny.
There are obviously many hurdles to clear before either of the measures under discussion comes into force. But the Select Committee's report makes a real and significant contribution to the development of Community policy in an area which affects the basic rights and freedoms of third country nationals seeking to enter the European Union.
The closer integration of Europe will inevitably lead to much greater movement across borders and it will become necessary to have co-ordinated control of the external borders of the member states, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, emphasised. The Maastricht Treaty created new opportunities for making progress in this area but it is important to ensure that progress is made in the right direction, with adequate safeguards against the misuse of necessary powers exercised by the public authorities of the member states.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, I want quickly to refer to four of the important issues raised in the report and in this debate: the proposals for a joint list of undesirable immigrants; carriers' liability; the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this area; and the negative list. I shall not comment on the individual case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, about the issuing of student visas in Moscow for Uzbek applicants.
Let me speak first about the joint list. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, pointed out, the proposed joint list is an amalgam of 12 national lists of undesirable immigrants seeking entry from third states. An individual who has the great misfortune to be on the joint list will be excluded from all 12 member states. A placing on the list is to be based on a decision taken purely in accordance with the national laws of the member states, in accordance with a curious use of the principle of subsidiarity.
The committee expressed concerns about the proposal for a joint list, concerns which I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, entirely share. Some of the grounds set out in Article 10 for a national decision to place a

1049
person on the joint list are vague and imprecise. There is a real and substantial risk that entries may be made by mistake, or through spite or ill will.
To relieve the possibility of error and serious injustice there must be effective safeguards and affordable remedies for those excluded because their names wrongly appear on the joint list. As suggested by the committee, some protection may be provided by the draft convention on the European information system. But that does not amount to sufficient protection. Under the draft convention, the individual's right of access to personal data held on the European information system is to be exercised in accordance with the law of the member state before which the individual invokes that right. For example, at present the protection of personal privacy in the United Kingdom is mainly contained in the Data Protection Act 1984.
The 1984 Act provides a legal framework for the processing of personal data. But the Act is concerned only with computerised or computer-usable information. It gives no right of access to paper files contained in manual systems. Therefore, any paper records relating to a placing on the joint list will be inaccessible and the denial of such information will severely hamper any appeal which may be made against the decision, if any appeal were allowed. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out, the judicial and other remedies in this country are otherwise extremely limited.
I agree with the committee that there is a need for a separate resolution or amendment to the European information system convention to ensure that member states have in place effective data protection mechanisms which will enable individuals placed on the joint list to access all data relevant to the decision to place them on the list, whether computerised or otherwise. In particular, the committee recommends—and I agree—that the individual refused entry in consequence of inclusion on the joint list should be told which member state placed him on the list and the nature of any allegation said to justify exclusion. The convention should include the requirement of appeals at national level against the decision to place a person on the joint list. Such appeals should take place as quickly as possible. It goes without saying that the list should be regularly updated to remove names no longer relevant or which were placed on the list in error.
I turn briefly to carriers' liability. The imposition of "appropriate penalties" on carriers, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, emphasised, is capable of interfering with the ability of asylum seekers to escape from countries where they had a fear of persecution. It would be a grave mistake if carriers were to refuse to carry asylum seekers for fear of penalty under the national legislation. I agree with the committee's recommendation that Article 14 of the draft convention should be modified to conform with Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention and permit the imposition of fines on carriers only where a carrier is negligent. There is also a need for legislation to make clear to carriers their overriding duty not to frustrate the right to seek asylum.
1050
In an effort to avoid penalty, airlines will undoubtedly tighten their procedures. Decisions on immigration control will be delegated to airline staff who are obviously not qualified to take into account the human rights obligations of the member states, both under the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees (and protocol) and under the European Convention on Human Rights. As the committee recommends, it would be beneficial if immigration officers and airline staff received instruction so as to ensure full compliance with the UK's obligations under the European convention and the refugee convention, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, the safeguards provided by those conventions in that area are only of limited value.
I turn to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Again, I agree with the committee which supports the European Commission's proposal to confer on the European Court of Justice jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the convention and jurisdiction in disputes concerning the implementation of the convention. In my view it involves no violation of pure jurisprudential doctrine that that should be done, even though, as we heard, the convention is an international treaty.
As the committee rightly stated, the European court would ensure broad uniformity of standards of control and help to give effect to obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. There would be great benefit in drawing upon the experience of the European court and its power to interpret and apply general principles of law, not yet fully recognised by the courts of this country, such as the principle of proportionality, so as to ensure, for example, that the penalties required by the external frontiers convention are not disproportionate and do not vary dramatically between member states and so distort control of the external frontiers.
Finally, I come to the negative list. It is a list of countries whose nationals would require visas to enter the territory of the member states. It would impose a visa requirement on a further 45 countries in addition to those the UK requires at present. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, gave powerful reinforcement to the committee's conclusion that the list is inordinately long and would be damaging to the interests of the UK and its visitors. The list should be shortened to remove a number of Commonwealth countries and the 12 member states should seek to formulate coherent criteria common to all.
The Refugee Council was right to point out in the Select Committee hearings that most people fleeing from persecution find it almost impossible to obtain a visa. By imposing the visa requirement so widely, the European Union would be shutting out potential asylum seekers from a large number of countries.
It gives me great pleasure to support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, to take note of this admirable report. It is a particular personal pleasure because I have long sat at the noble and learned Lord's feet. When I was an undergraduate at Cambridge I learnt the history of the law of assumpsit from him sitting, as I recall, with Sir Leon Brittan on the end of Queen Victoria's bed in the judges' lodgings

1051
at Trinity College, Cambridge. And I have been learning from him ever since. We are fortunate indeed to have such a distinguished former member of the European Court of Justice and serving Law Lord as a main architect of this admirable document.
5.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to join with all other noble Lords who expressed their gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and his colleagues for this report on a most important subject. I confess that as a non-lawyer I found a good deal of the argument difficult to follow. I tried to leave aside those parts of the legal argument which did not seem to me to be important or essential for the political and social decisions which arise from the issues. Noble Lords who are legally qualified will therefore forgive me if some of my comments appear to be somewhat simplistic.
The most important thing about the report is the extent to which it is an innovation in the consideration of European draft legislation and conventions. The ability given under Article K for us to consider these conventions in draft and the way in which Article K, and in particular Article K.3, enables them to be dealt with by proposals from the Commission to the Council and by consideration then by the Council, and for the views of the European Parliament to be taken into account, are clearly important for the future of national scrutiny of European directives and legislation. If the advantage which the sub-committee had in dealing with the matter before the text and details are finalised is to be followed in the future, the work of our European Communities Committee will be immensely strengthened.
In this case, however, we obtain little advantage from it because the convention which we are considering this afternoon and which the sub-committee considered is in itself a recycling of a 1991 convention which was arrived at in accordance with the old secretive rules which my noble friend Lord Dubs rightly criticised. It is only before us because of the outstanding disagreement between Spain and the United Kingdom about Gibraltar. Otherwise, as my noble friend said, it would already have been enacted and we would not have been able to say anything at all about it. But the implication that it is a recycled convention, using the new ability of the Commission to raise matters itself when they appear to be in deadlock, means that there has been a self-denying ordinance on the part of almost everybody except the European Parliament and your Lordships' sub-committee to proposing significant changes to the convention. The likelihood is that significant changes will not be made to the conventions. In theory, the way in which we have been able to consider the conventions is hopeful for the future; in practice, the limitations on these particular conventions are rather severe.
I should like to make my comments in the order in which the summary and conclusions in paragraphs 109 to 121 have been presented by the sub-committee. That does not mean that I need comment on all of them but I want to comment on the most important ones. Paragraph 109 refers to internal border controls and
1052
expresses the view of the sub-committee, as of previous sub-committees, that it should not be obligatory on the United Kingdom to demolish internal border controls between the United Kingdom and other member states. I do not have very much sympathy with that view, but I do not think it is a matter on which we should excite ourselves too much as the European Court of Justice will be issuing a ruling in the fairly early part of next year. The implications of that ruling, particularly if it is ruled that inter-member state movements cannot be subject to border controls, are very significant indeed.
Paragraph 110 deals with the status of the conventions and brings out the difference between the Home Office view, which is that this is an international agreement which members may sign or not, and the view of the Commission, the wording of which I do not pretend to understand in detail. It may not matter very much except for the fact that the Commission's view—the Article K procedure to which I have already referred—involves a degree of consultation between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament before a text is finalised. My noble friend Lord Dubs drew attention to the value of that process which would not be available from an international agreement, which needs to be ratified by individual states, produced in the older way.
A further consideration which leads me to greater sympathy with the Commission's view than the sub-committee had is that essentially an agreement of this kind has to be implemented with unanimity. One cannot have an agreement which is ratified by a number of member states but perhaps by not all of them and implemented in different ways. I appreciate that the status of the regulations is quite powerful. Even so, I believe that we have to go into this with a degree of unanimity about both what the conventions contain and the way in which they are to be implemented, even if that means, as was pointed out in evidence to the sub-committee, that very often the result is a compromise which satisfies no one completely.
Paragraph 111 refers to airports. Here I think a little common sense rather than legal argument is called for. It seems to me common sense that the British provision for transit passengers to be treated as airside—in other words, not to go through procedures as they arrive at, in particular, London Airport, but also other airports within the European Union—should be preserved. Noble Lords may know of the procedures facing anyone who enters the United States and wishes to move onto a connecting flight. One goes through immigration procedures in, for example, Seattle before catching a flight to San Francisco, or even worse, one undergoes immigration procedures in San Francisco, where one can wait for two hours before catching a connecting flight to somewhere else. The airside provision for transit passengers, whereby one knows what one's minimum connect time is and that one can catch one's flight and that it is only at one's last destination where one is not catching another flight that one has to go through immigration procedures of perhaps unpredictable length, will recognise that our system is much better. I hope that all effort will he made by the Government to support that view.

1053
On the other issue of the difference between domestic and international flights, with the extension of domestic flights to include inter-European flights, I think that the airports and the airlines are going a little over the top. After all, Heathrow Airport already has two terminals—Terminal 1 and Terminal 2—which are largely for domestic and European flights and two terminals—Terminal 3 and Terminal 4—which are largely for international flights. Given enough time, I agree, it is not a great problem to redefine domestic flights to include European flights and to make provision for immigration and Customs facilities accordingly. It may be awkward for individual airlines to do both, but it is not a problem of the greatest significance. The worst solution would be if the nine Schengen states were to go ahead with abolishing internal controls and the UK, Ireland and Denmark were to be left on one side. Then we really would be pariahs in Europe.
The most important issue of the joint list has been dealt with by many noble Lords and for very good reason. Inherently, a joint list which is created by bringing together the names of those whom any member state wants to put on but yet which requires the agreement of a large number of member states to get them off will be the lowest common denominator of common sense. It will be the easiest list to get on to and the most difficult list to get off. It does not seem to me that the remedies proposed are adequate for the purpose. The sub-committee uses the phrase "judicial remedy in that state". As has been pointed out, after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the United Kingdom does not have adequate remedies because we have deliberately abolished them. But I am sure that that is true in other states as well. Surely what we need is not judicial remedy in individual states but common measures accepted throughout the European Union to resolve disputes and appeals.
Exactly the same goes for paragraph 113, which deals with residence permits. The problem is that if a single member state removes the residence permit of an individual the individual cannot get into any of the 12, soon to be 15, member states. That seems to be going over the top. Again, the same principles of common measures to resolve disputes apply.
Paragraph 114 is wholly welcome. It deals with the need for an explicit link with the European information system. This is linked very much into the ability of individuals to appeal against their inclusion on a joint list. I would suggest that it would be desirable to include reference to the European Convention on Data Protection, which deals with the quite sensitive issues of the need to inform individuals about what information is on a list—it will, after all, be a computerised list—without at the same time making information about them available to those who might wish to damage their interests, in particular those in other countries who would wish to persecute them.
The issue of carriers' liability has been a matter of concern to your Lordships over many years. I know that there have been heated debates on the subject. That has been true because the United Kingdom takes perhaps a more extreme view about carriers' liability than almost
1054
anyone else. We insist not only on repatriation at the carrier's expense but also on very severe financial penalties, many of which some airlines are still not paying. A considerable amount of money is still outstanding.
We do not make any provision for the recommendations of the sub-committee made by a number of noble Lords that carriers should be liable only if it can be shown that they have been negligent in their procedures. The implications of carriers' liability go far beyond the interests of the individual airlines. They extend to the core of the issue of refugees and asylum seekers, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others have rightly said. If we are to act in accordance with Article 9 of the Chicago Convention, we shall have to do something about the problem that refugees and asylum seekers have rights only when they are in the country. But they cannot get into the country at all in order to claim those rights if the regulations about carriers' liability go over the top and exclude all those who may, for perfectly understandable and good reasons, be fleeing from persecution in their own country.
I shall deal very briefly with paragraph 116 on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Without in any way suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I agree with his views about the incorporation of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in United Kingdom law, in general I certainly agree with all that has been said about the jurisdiction of that court as regards the matters concerned with these conventions.
Paragraph 117, 118 and 121 have been very adequately dealt with. They concern visas and the positive and negative lists of countries. I do not remember which film musical it was, but I believe the line is "Accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative".
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it continues, I believe, "Latch on to the affirmative".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no doubt that the noble Baroness is better informed on these matters than I am. I am sure that she can correct me afterwards if I get it wrong.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And "Don't mess with Mr. In-Between".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is important to minimise in particular the grey list which is going to cause confusion for everybody. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, it is true that the actual lists are crazy. That has implications for asylum and for conformity with the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Finally, and very briefly, I agree very much with what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, about short-term visas. It seems to me that a three-month period for a short-term visa is quite inadequate for the United Kingdom for two reasons—the educational reason which he cites and because as an ex-colonial power we have a very large number of people in this country with families in other parts of the Commonwealth and the former Empire. It is entirely proper that they should wish to be reunited with their

1055
families for a period longer than six months. It should not be a complicated matter of getting a European uniform visa and getting a national visa afterwards. We are asking for trouble if we get into that kind of complication. I cannot see what possible damage it can do to the other countries in the European Union if we insist on that point.
I apologise for racing through. The issues raised by this report are of considerable importance. The committee, the chairman and the advisers to the committee are to be congratulated on the way in which they have brought these matters forward, even if they have been unable to penetrate my thick, non-lawyer's skull in many respects.
5.54 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, in common with almost everyone who has spoken, I begin by thanking the committee for the work which it has done. I add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, for instigating the debate which we have had this afternoon. I believe that everyone will agree that it has been extremely enlightening. It is one of the hallmarks of a report of this kind that it sheds light on something which can appear to be extremely complex. Sometimes it is very difficult to see the realities which lie behind it. The sub-committee's report and the evidence which was taken by it have done very much to inform your Lordships' House and many beyond it, of the important issues which are involved.
Many of your Lordships have drawn attention to the importance of this report as giving a chance to this House and Parliament to comment on the possible European legislation before it comes into effect. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, pointed out that this was in fact the first time that a question of a draft convention of this kind has been subject to a report by the sub-committee. The value of it has been proved.
I noted what was said not only by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, but by a number of other noble Lords, about the perhaps rather late stage in the proceedings at which this particular remedy of examination by the committee took place. I accept that to some extent it was the hazard of the failure to agree about Gibraltar which allowed that to happen in this case. I believe that the Government will have noted the points which were made in that connection.
Perhaps in addressing some of the topics which have been raised, I can to some extent give your Lordships some information about the events which have happened since the report of the committee in July. Before doing so, I mention one particular matter raised by my noble friend Lord Rennell in connection with visas. Of course I accept that it is a very important function of the Foreign Office that the visa service should be satisfactory. The consular section of the embassy in Moscow has recently been strengthened.
My noble friend drew attention to a particular problem. At present there are no plans to extend consular representation throughout the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, in the case of Tashkent it is
1056
intended that a consular office will be opened there sometime next year as soon as suitable accommodation can be found. My noble friend made an important point and I shall pass it on to Foreign Office Ministers.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I cannot think of a more logical way of dealing with the matter than by going through some of the paragraphs in the same order as they occur in the report. I welcome paragraph 109 where the committee returns to Article 7a which it had dealt with before. It reaffirms its view that no legal obligation is imposed by that article on member states to abolish controls on people at internal community borders. As many noble Lords will know, that has long been the view of the United Kingdom Government. In that connection, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated, it may be—although not necessarily the case—the subject of a ruling by the European Court in connection with the action which the European Parliament has brought against the European Commission for its alleged failure to ensure the complete abolition of frontier controls. The United Kingdom has taken the opportunity of intervening in the case to set out its interpretation of Article 7a. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated, our latest information is that the case is unlikely to be heard until the middle of 1995 at the earliest.
In paragraph 110 the committee made a recommendation in connection with the form of the convention. Although it seems a technicality in some ways, this is a matter to which the Government have attached great importance for the kinds of reasons to which the committee referred. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that earlier this year the Council agreed that a final Act drawing up a convention under Title VI should recommend its adoption by member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Therefore, the convention will be signed by representatives of the heads of government of member states as is consistent with the principles of international law, with the signatures taking place on the same day as that on which the text is formally drawn up. The Government are participating in negotiations on the draft convention with the aim of arriving at a text which has the full character of an international agreement.
From that somewhat esoteric matter, I turn to the reconfiguration of the airport and to the position under the recommendation in paragraph 111. This is a matter of considerable importance. We are all aware of the role of Heathrow and Gatwick airports as hub airports. It is apparent that any change in the present arrangements for routeing airside transit passengers raises important questions about the necessary infrastructure changes and the inconvenience to both carriers and passengers. As your Lordships will appreciate, this matter has been the subject of negotiation. Most of your Lordships do not find the provisions particularly attractive. My understanding is that there is no current intention that those provisions in the convention should be amended. Nonetheless, it is correct to have regard to the cost consequences of the changes. Our understanding is that if those convention provisions were to go through, the cost of the necessary adjustments to the infrastructure of

1057
the airports would amount to up to £450 million, so it is no small matter. Obviously, if that is to happen, it is important that adequate time should be allowed for the implementation of the changes. The Government will bear that matter fully in mind when negotiating a date for the implementation of the convention. At the moment, officials are liaising with representatives of the industry to arrive at a solution that will, as far as possible, minimise any possible disruption to the airports and their passengers.
It is fair to say that paragraph 112 was of concern to almost all noble Lords who have spoken. It was plainly of great concern to the committee. As I understand it, everybody accepted the basic principle behind the idea of an external frontiers convention and its consequence, having a common list. However, I believe that all noble Lords had apprehensions about the way in which the criteria had been laid down and on the question of appeals.
On the question of exactly what the criteria will be and how they will be put into legislation, the Government cannot at this stage give any indication of our final view. That is because of the provision in Article 10. As some of your Lordships mentioned, although the criteria are set out, the detailed rules have to be determined by measures that are provided for in order to give effect to the convention. Those measures might well require legislation in this country. The final details have not yet been worked out.
In that connection, it is the Government's view at this stage—this goes along with much that has been said by your Lordships—that once a person learns that his name is on the list, he should be informed which country put his name on the list. That is for the obvious reason that unless he is told that, he will have no access to a system whereby he might have some form of redress. As to the form of that redress, the Government do not anticipate that this country will provide for an appeal if somebody's name has been included on the list. Noble Lords may not care for it, but it corresponds to the position that was taken in the 1993 Act. However, that does not mean that those whose names are included on the list are without all judicial remedy because if the inclusion of a name is for some reason unlawful, the person concerned would have a right of judicial review, as in other cases.
On the matter of the European information systems convention, like the committee, the Government fully accept that it would be proper to make a formal link between the convention and the information systems convention.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to ask a question on that point before he moves on to the next subject. So that I can understand the way in which a judicial review would work, can we assume, so as not to offend any existing member state, that a state called Ruritania becomes a member state of the Union and considers that there are serious grounds for thinking that someone from outside is a threat to Ruritania's public policy on national security? The person is told that it is Ruritania
1058
that has put him on the black list. If Ruritania has the kind of limited judicial review that we have in this country, the person concerned will have very little opportunity of obtaining redress in either that country or this country. I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister can indicate a way in which judicial protection can be real rather than symbolic in this area.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, if Ruritania had the same kind of judicial review as we do, presumably the person would have the same access to remedy in Ruritania as in this country. I am thinking, for example, of a case where the decision to include a person's name on the list was unreasonable, based on a mistake or made on the basis of insufficient evidence. The noble Lord is familiar with such categories. The person concerned would have that kind of remedy. He would not have the remedy of an appeal, as I have made clear.
The matter of carriers' liability has occupied your Lordships on previous occasions also, and some of the points that have been made today can be made in respect of carriers' liability in any context. In this context, we have made it clear that we have invoked the provisions of Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention which allows governments to register a difference between their legislation and that provided for by the convention. We see no conflict with the convention. Indeed, I do not think that such a conflict was suggested.
The carriers' liability legislation is a form of legislation which has been introduced by many countries to meet what is perceived as being a problem with forged and other unsatisfactory documents. The Government have done a great deal to train people at home and abroad in all aspects of the legislation and in detecting forgeries. As I understand it, over 320 training visits have been made to locations in 79 different countries. The programme is continuing. In addition, the Immigration Service is available to give advice on a 24-hour basis. In that way, we hope that the staff involved will have a full understanding of the legislation which they have to implement.
As the noble and learned Lord Lord Slynn recognised, the role of the European Court of Justice is a matter upon which views may be divided. Most noble Lords who spoke were in favour of the ECJ having a role. Despite that recommendation, the Government are opposed to the court having jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of this convention. As your Lordships know, Title VI of the treaty does not confer jurisdiction unless the member states agree. In this case the Government consider that jurisdiction should be a matter for national courts.
Much evidence on that matter was laid before the committee. While the Government take the view that it is inappropriate, as this is a third pillar subject, it is fair to say that even some of the witnesses who were broadly in favour of the ECJ could see practical difficulties which, to some extent, are reflected in the committee's recommendations regarding the ECJ's role in taking references on this matter.

1059
Perhaps I may cover the last provisions quickly. We accept fully what the committee said on the competency issues raised under recommendations 117 and 118. They correspond fully with our view.
Finally, the common visa list raises an issue which, again, is of importance to many noble Lords who have noted the extent of the positive list. It is a strange positive list, because it has a negative effect. None the less, your Lordships have noticed that it seems to be extremely long. The Government's position is that it is too long, and that it contains many countries from whose nationals we do not require visas. The system works well without them. We hope that the list can be cut down during the course of negotiations. Of course we are in favour of having a common visa list, because it seems to be a way of minimising variations in national practice and is therefore something which, in general terms, the Community feels is desirable. While, as I say, we are in favour of the idea, we are not happy with the extent of the list at present and hope that when it is finalised it will be shorter.
I have been able to touch on only some of the issues. The debate has raised issues of great importance. It has been a worthwhile debate. I have no doubt that it will be the precursor of many future similar debates.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive consideration of the most important topics which arise in the report. I thank also other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his kind personal words. I hope that he remembers more of the history of assumpsit than I do.
This has been an important debate. Your Lordships have made clear how much importance should be attached to the review not just of Community measures but of proposals being discussed by member states under the second and third pillars. Your Lordships made clear too how important it is to protect those who seek asylum and those who may find their names wrongly on a list. I hope that the Government will continue to consider whether there should not be some unified appeal system throughout the Community, if, with experience, they find that persons are being put on the list and are not obtaining an adequate remedy. It is plain that there should be some form of sufficient protection for people who find their names on the list.
I attach great importance to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, about the difficulty of ensuring that there are to be controls at the external frontiers, even though the committee, as the Minister said, considers that internal border controls do not have to be abolished as a result of the Single European Act.
I have to say—your Lordships will not be surprised about this—that I am disappointed by the Minister's answer as to the role of the ECJ. He will not be offended if I say that I hope that that will not be the Government's standard reaction to proposals under the second and third pillars. We had a witness from a government department on another inquiry last week. We asked, "Should there not here be a role for the European
1060
Court?". "No, no, no", came the answer, "The Government do not like this sort of thing going to the European Court of Justice". I ask the Minister to bear in mind that all our witnesses were in favour; the European Parliament is in favour; and all noble Lords who have spoken tonight were in favour.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the attention given to this important topic. Once the regulation and convention are in force, that will lead to some interesting problems.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defence Research Agency: Select Committee Report
6.17 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne The Earl of Selborne rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on the Defence Research Agency (3rd Report, HL Paper 24).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful was the sub-committee to be able to benefit from the co-option of two noble Lords with considerable knowledge of the Defence Research Agency—my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who was in the Ministry of Defence at the time of its inception and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, from whose expertise we benefited enormously. We were helped greatly by our two specialist advisers, Professor Frank Hartley and Professor Philip Gummett. I must pay tribute also to our Clerk, David Batt, for his crucial contribution.
It was true in my case (and it was possibly true in the case of some other members of the committee) that we were not all familiar with the DRA and its role. Let me say immediately that we were all impressed by the quality of its science and its management. The DRA, as at present constituted, is one of the largest employers of science in the country with 5,000 scientists and a turnover of £795 million. All but 9 per cent. of its work is conducted by the Ministry of Defence. It is a wholly owned agency of the Ministry.
Our report was published in July before the Government produced Front Line First, a report on the outcome of the defence cost studies; and as the Government's response to our report states, the report has major implications for the future structure of the agency.
As an outcome of those proposals, it is likely that the DRA will be brought together into a single executive agency with all the other MoD non-nuclear science and technology organisations. That has happened since the publication of our report and I shall deal with it no more.
The DRA was formed in 1991 by amalgamating four research establishments which had formidable reputations. The agency acquired trading fund status in 1993. Our report draws attention to the record of achievement of those defence research establishments and how important it has been for the agency to maintain the reputation and momentum in order to retain battle-winning technological advantage. That has been against the background of reducing cost and changing unpredictable risks.
This advantage gained in the past by the provision of technological excellence must now be achieved on greatly reduced funds. The DRA is undergoing a programmed fall in work from the Ministry of Defence of 15 per cent. between 1993 and 1996. That involves the closing of sites, the restructuring of support activities and other cost-cutting measures. At the same time, in common with much other publicly funded work, a market testing programme is being implemented in phases whereby all the work which the DRA carries out for the Defence Procurement Executive of the Ministry will be market tested by 1997. That puts the management of the agency under considerable pressure.
Against these constraints, the DRA has initiated a number of what we describe as positive thrusts into the commercial world by developing closer links with industry through its Pathfinder programme, strategic alignment and dual use technology centres. We recognise that, in spite of its name, research is only one of the agency's two main functions. Sir Ronald Oxburgh pointed out that perhaps its more important role is to be able to offer technical advice to the Ministry. To that end, it engages in strategic and applied research and project support. Its raison d'etre—its justification—is that it must acquire and retain an expertise to be able to offer expert advice to the Ministry.
The opportunity to contribute to wealth creation by supporting industry or by expanding its own intellectual property base must not be allowed to detract from its central role by providing a core of technical advice, however important this role might appear to be to industry or, indeed, to other parts of Government. That draws attention to a second serious constraint if the first constraint is funding. Much as the DRA might like to maximise its income, and under its trading fund status it is expected to act commercially, this must always be done in a way that is compatible with the Ministry's requirements. After all, the Ministry is the owner of the agency.
As a wholly owned subsidiary with no mandate to spend money on areas which do not benefit the defence of the country, there are real difficulties in fulfilling the more commercial role that is expected of the agency. To make a difficult situation worse, funding from the DTI is declining. Our report draws attention to the near elimination of DTI grants to Malvern, for example. This puts the DRA into a difficult situation. It is required to meet some very precise targets, yet does not benefit from an equally strong obligation on its shareholder and regulator, the Ministry of Defence.
However, we greatly welcome the increased funding that is to be channelled through the deputy chief scientific adviser. We believe that that will lead to a greater element of stability. If we were critical of the efforts made by the Ministry of Defence to develop its relationship with the DRA it was because we were anxious about the short-term nature of some of the appointments that fulfil the role of customer. That leads to a lack of continuity. That is not true of the deputy chief scientific adviser and his group, who provide a
1062
welcome element of stability. In so far as the proportion of funding to the DRA will be increased through this route, we welcome it.
We also drew attention to the concept of the Fraser figure, which we explain in the report, and we believe that the concept needs further development within the Ministry. The DRA needs guidance on the Ministry's long-term requirements. In so far as the Ministry, for reasons which I have acknowledged, is unable to assist adequately in the promotion of wealth creation projects, it must consider closer collaboration with the Office of Science and Technology so that the opportunities to support our industry and to contribute to wealth creation are more effectively exploited. We acknowledge the role of the Office of Science and Technology in the area of defence research in the Technology Foresight programme, which it supervises, and in Forward Look.
In a report published last year on priorities for the science base, we made a recommendation that the chief scientific adviser be empowered to expose any inconsistencies in the science plans of departments. We believe that is an obvious example. For reasons of accountability, it is understandable that the Ministry of Defence cannot put as much into wealth creation as perhaps last year's White Paper suggested. We believe that the Office of Science and Technology has a greater input to make in the agency and we recognise that the Ministry of Defence is bound to be protective of its territory.
We looked with interest at the examples of the United States, France and elsewhere where interdepartmental difficulties do not inhibit the development of wealth creating enterprises in defence research establishments—at least not to the same extent. I am sure that the level of parliamentary accountability is different and that it is no good expecting systems that work in one country to be transplanted to another. The concept of economic security is one that the Americans have been able to use to justify the greater flexibility of funding within Ministry of Defence research establishments.
I have dealt at some length with the difficulties and point out that an opportunity to review this delicate relationship within government will occur when the framework document for the DRA is reviewed in 1998. Of course, the Office of Science and Technology will be involved in that review. However, that seems rather a long time to wait.
Having dealt with some of the difficulties encountered by the DRA in fostering industrial links, we were nevertheless impressed by the Pathfinder programme and the concept of dual use technology centres. Since the publication of our report two more such centres have been funded and we greatly welcome that. Both dual use technology centres and Pathfinder programmes will, no doubt, evolve as a track record is established. In particular, we should like to see the Pathfinder programme made more accessible to small manufacturing enterprises.
I have been able to refer only in outline to a few of the recommendations in our report. I wish to emphasise that we believe that before yet more scientists are made redundant and, above all, before unique facilities are

1063
lost, we should think carefully about the contribution that these facilities and scientists could make to underpin future economic security.
We believe that the quality of science within the DRA is too high to put at risk and requires some equally high quality solutions from government in order to ensure that we make the best possible use of this expertise. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on the Defence Research Agency (3rd Report, HL Paper 24).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
6.28 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I should make clear from the start the fact that I am no longer a member of the Science and Technology Committee and am therefore in no way associated with the report. I congratulate the noble Earl and his committee on having produced an interesting and valuable report which illuminates the problems that the Defence Research Agency faces and those that have been created by its formation. The report does not attempt to gloss over the fact that there are unsatisfactory elements in the anomalous situation in which the agency has been placed: its dependence on and tight control by the Ministry of Defence; its remit to contribute as much as possible to fields other than defence, in particular, those considered to be in the national interest; and the demand that it should earn revenue by doing so, affecting its relations with other government departments, with industry, with which in some cases it is competing, and with other research organisations. There is also a delicate problem concerned with relations with similar organisations in allied countries.
The Government's response, published three days ago, underlines those problems. Their defensive arguments, complacently protesting that all the conflicting demands and loyalties can be, are being and will be reconciled in a satisfactory way, illustrate in a repetitive fashion the anomalies inherent in the attempt to make the defence research and development establishments fulfil a number of conflicting purposes.
It would seem to me that the committee had some difficulty in finding solutions to these problems. I doubt whether the noble Earl, its chairman, would claim that its recommendations go very far towards solving them, although they may do something to alleviate them. I believe that that is so because they are not radical enough, and do not go to the heart of the matter. The committee has perhaps been constrained by its acceptance that, as the report states:
"the various structural reorganisations to which the DRA has been subjected in the past few years call for a period of consolidation and stability".
'The heart of the matter is that the requirement for re-equipment of our Armed Forces over the foreseeable future does not justify the maintenance of defence research and development establishments of the size and nature of those now left in the DRA. They were built up and endowed with many of their valuable assets in the Second World War. Although much reduced since then, they are out of proportion to the future
1064
requirement, certainly in terms of the quantity of equipment which would be produced in this country; and it is not acceptable to justify their existence on the basis of their contribution to the arms export industry.
Because that is the case, the pressure, clearly recognised in the report and in the Government's response, is that greater emphasis should be given to their potential contribution to other fields of national life, particularly to industry, and to their cost to the taxpayer being offset by sale of their services. That produces conflicting demands and loyalties and many other problems, some of which I have already mentioned. The report clearly acknowledges them. Although its recommendations edge in the direction of loosening the Ministry of Defence's tight control and of associating other government departments with the agency, notably the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Science and Technology, it treads warily and in my view does not go far enough. The report, in paragraphs 2.34 and 5.14, to which the noble Earl referred, recommends a close study of French and American defence research as examples of directing it towards wider national interests than just the support of a national defence equipment programme. I would urge a study of the German method. As I understand it, the Germans have no defence research establishments as such, controlled by their defence ministry. Their armed forces depend upon a combination of research carried out by their prestigious civil scientific institutes, such as the Max Planck, which also serve industry and other national objectives, and development carried out by the armament firms themselves. One must of course make allowance for all the differences which exist between how science is organised, supported and financed in this country and how it is done in Germany. Nevertheless I believe that a close study of the German solution, which is no less successful than the French and American both in developing military equipment and in supporting broad national objectives, would repay a very careful study.
If we were to move in that direction, my proposal would be to split up the Defence Research Agency into its former four establishments—the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, the Admiralty Research Establishment, the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment—and detach them, with the probable exception of RARDE, from the Ministry of Defence. The agency, as it now is and as the Ministry of Defence plans it to be, is an uneasy amalgam of establishments of different natures and objectives. I would then convert RSRE at Malvern into a National Electronics Institute, RAE at Farnborough into a National Aerospace Institute and most of ARE into a National Maritime Institute, some elements of it perhaps being absorbed by the Electronics and Aerospace Institutes. In my view, those institutes should have close links with a specific university: perhaps Cambridge for electronics; London, particularly Imperial College, for aerospace; and Southampton for maritime. They should also offer shared use on a commercial basis of some of their assets with other research organisations, as has recently been agreed in the case of the ship testing tanks at Haslar

1065
between the former Admiralty Research Establishment and British Maritime Technology Ltd. I would envisage those three institutes coming under the aegis of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Parts of RARDE might be amalgamated with other institutes: the former Fighting Vehicle Research and Development Establishment perhaps with what is now the Transport Research Agency; but the weapons and ammunition side, formerly Fort Halstead, should probably remain a Ministry of Defence establishment.
I believe that such a fundamental reorganisation would provide a solution to the problems to which the recommendations of the report, in my view, offer only palliative alleviations. It is unrealistic today, and will be more so in the future, to think of a defence procurement programme based on national research and development and national production. The quantities are too small, the cost too high and the industrial base too narrow. We need to seek a European procurement programme, backed by high quality national science, supporting a thriving British electronic, aerospace, maritime and general engineering industry, working in a European context.
That was the message that the Minister for Defence Procurement gave forcefully yesterday in his address to the Defence Manufacturers Association. I suggest that he should try to persuade his right honourable friend the Defence Secretary to apply it to the Defence Research Agency.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I had the honour to serve on the committee whose report your Lordships are now considering. I wish to start by paying tribute to our chairman, my noble friend Lord Selborne, for the wise and effective way in which he guided our deliberations and which I believe is reflected in the report which we have produced.
I have listened with interest to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I wish that we had had an opportunity, during the course of our deliberations, to know the noble and gallant Lord's views so that they could perhaps have been tested, examined and considered more than they were.
I am wholly supportive of the report which your Lordships are considering. However, there is one matter which is not wholly removed from what the noble and gallant Lord has been talking about today to which I should like to refer; that is, the possibility in due course, of moving the Defence Research Agency into the private sector.
We were not charged with considering that proposition. There was no particular support for it among the members of the committee and, indeed, when the Minister, my right honourable friend Mr. Aitken, came to speak to us, he made it clear that there were no government plans for such a move. I am told that the Government's response to our report—and I am sorry to say that my copy arrived only today and I have not yet had an opportunity to study it—refers also to the fact that there are no present government plans for that particular course of action. But I believe that some of
1066
the difficulties to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has just referred, which are real and which were identified in our report, would be overcome by moving the Defence Research Agency into the private sector.
Having said that, I agree also with the conclusion which the committee reached to the effect that the DRA has been subjected to all sorts of reorganisations and changes in recent years and now would not be the time for a move into the private sector. The agency deserves and is entitled to a period of consolidation. I recognise the fact that the noble and gallant Lord did not think that that was wholly desirable. However, I certainly believe that to be desirable as, indeed, did the committee.
However, when that period is over in, say, two, three or even four years from now, I believe that it would be right to revisit the question of whether or not the DRA should be privatised. As the noble and gallant Lord said, the fact is that the capacity of the DRA at present exceeds that which can usefully be fully employed by the Ministry of Defence. I am very much attached to the thought that the excellent resources and facilities available within the DRA ought to be more widely available to our national effort in terms of generating more and better technologies for use not only for military purposes, but also for civil purposes, to a much greater extent than they are at present.
As I said, the committee was not charged with examining whether or not the DRA should be privatised; nor, therefore, did we reach any particular, immediate conclusions on that point. But I should like to see the question of the ownership of the DRA revisited after a period of consolidation. I hope that the Government will find it possible to do so.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, this was my first experience of a Select Committee, at least of sitting at the round end of a Select Committee table. I am most grateful for the friendly support that I received from the chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne and from the rest of the committee. As the noble Earl mentioned, the topic of our investigation was not unfamiliar to me. I had some involvement with the work done in the Ministry of Defence which led Ministers to amalgamate the research establishments into the DRA, and the subsequent introduction of a trading fund in 1993. Following the collapse of the Soviet threat, it was also clear that the MoD's research requirements would need to be scrutinised most thoroughly against the background of the post cold war world.
Change in any large and complex organisation is never easy. Those involved in the formation of the DRA faced a double whammy: the amalgamations and restructuring of the former research establishments and the downward pressures on their future budgets. Some argue that in periods of peace and retrenchment, expenditure on the strategic research programme should not be curtailed. Indeed, the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994 (CM2550 at page 64) said:
"The need to retain battle winning technological advantage is as pressing now as it has ever been in the context of changing unpredictable risks".

1067
If such aspirations are to be realised, it is not only a matter of money but of staff with the right background and motivation to deliver on good ideas. With that in mind, and the unprecedented changes which had already taken place in forming the DRA with its trading fund, our committee called for a period of consolidation and stability. Indeed, several of our witnesses stressed that need.
It was, therefore, with no little surprise that I read in the Defence Costs Study report, Front Line First, issued in July 1994 after our review had been completed, that savings estimated at £12 million a year could be expected, subject to further work (I note the reservation implicit in that phrase) if the DRA principles were applied as widely as possible to other MoD organisations which provide scientific and technological services.
It is a fundamental precept of scientific experiment that to get a proper evaluation the introduction of too many variables at the same time will almost certainly distort the conclusions. Fifteen months' experience of the DRA with its trading fund seems perilously short to conclude that it is not only a goer in its present form but that it will be able to absorb new resources and organisations immediately with cost savings and no adverse effects. It was an unfortunate matter of timing that our committee could be given no hint in MoD evidence of such further major changes. Time will tell whether the MoD has got that right or has fallen once more into the trap of piling change upon change to such an extent that quality of output cannot be sustained.
There is just one other aspect of our report that I should like to touch on. We concluded from evidence that Treasury rules place an unnecessarily high burden upon the DRA. I understand that the 6 per cent. risk-free target rate of return set by the Secretary of State for Defence is the same as applied across other government trading funds. They say that it provides a necessary commercial discipline. At the same time, the DRA is said to be free to charge what it deems appropriate for its facilities, provided that it does not disadvantage the MoD. Is there not some inconsistency in those approaches? Why should the DRA be grouped with every other trading fund? Should it not be treated on its own merits? We are told that the DRA is free, but only so long as it charges—at least—what the MoD says it must. Treasury and MoD rules seem to be inflexible, and not always in the best commercial and wealth-creating interests that we would all like to see from the DRA.
The DRA enterprise fund should be developed to give both the encouragement and the wherewithal to exploit the considerable financial potential of the DRA. While the MoD as sole owner of the DRA must be given priority, and every effort made to meet the MoD's legitimate requirements, it should also be possible for the chief executive and his team to seek to enhance the national wealth-creating potential which lies within the DRA. That may be difficult to achieve in a meaningful way if the MoD insists that any capacity surplus to defence needs must be removed. The DRA seems to be between a rock and the hard place.
1068
Finally, the DRA and its predecessor research establishments have been through a period of unprecedented change, financially, organisationally and functionally. I hope that no "Johnny come lately" will feel that the DRA needs to be reviewed yet again in the near future; for example—and I note what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said—with a view to privatisation or further restructuring. The agency needs stability to set itself on its new course, to allow time to assess properly the success of the new arrangements and, above all, to allow the scientists and others who have been so personally affected by so much upheaval to plan ahead for their families and themselves. If not, morale and quality of output could be badly hit.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a few brief comments about the report. I should also like to say that I welcome the Government's reply; indeed, it is extremely comprehensive. However, the area that I most welcome about the Government's reply can be found at the end of paragraph 3. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will not agree with me in that respect, but I think that those words are most important. They read:
"There continue to be no plans for privatisation".
Like many members of the committee, I believe that privatisation of the Defence Research Agency will not be in the best interests of the country.
When I was considering my speech, I realised that many noble Lords would speak in great detail. As many speakers were members of the committee and know a great deal about the subject, I should like to discuss a few areas that concerned the committee over all.
While thinking about the speech I would make in this debate I received the Defence Research Agency's annual report 1993–94. It is quite an exciting document. The first section of it reads very much like an episode of "Tomorrow's World". I say that with no disrespect at all. The document shows how the Defence Research Agency is at the cutting edge of advanced technologies. I was particularly interested in the work being done on light emission from silicon.
The document almost states why the reforms we are discussing were undertaken. The Defence Research Agency carries out exciting research. The 10 per cent. of it which is directly outside the MoD's control can be used for wealth creation and for the benefit of the country. The report describes the vast areas of expertise that are covered by the Defence Research Agency and many areas which are not limited just to defence.
The second section of the report lists the enormous changes that have taken place within the Defence Research Agency. I believe that these changes are mostly for the good. However, I have one or two points to add on this matter. I believe that one of the driving forces behind the changes is efficiency. But there is a slight dichotomy as regards pushing for efficiency in research. On the one hand one is trying to limit the money being spent and on the other one is trying to achieve as much with the research as possible.

1069
I have talked with the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, about the role of efficiency within the DRA. I believe we share the view that one area that has been particularly discussed is that of blue sky research. While there is a strong push for efficiency, that will cut down on the eventual returns from blue sky research. Also, as the research becomes more specialised, that could lead to short-termism. Although I realise that often few benefits are to be gained from pouring vast amounts of money into research without a direct aim in mind, I believe that one area that has to be carefully monitored is that short-termism might become an in-built factor in all the research undertaken by the Defence Research Agency.
I also wish to discuss intellectual property rights. I believe strongly that there is no reason why the country should not benefit from any revenue that may accrue from this work and that intellectual property rights should fund other areas of the Defence Research Agency. However, I disagree with the Government's response in one respect. I believe that, if at all possible, intellectual property rights should be sold to British companies below the rate of return that would normally be expected if they can show that such a course would create jobs in this country and add to the manufacturing base. I believe that that is an important point. One may forget that a small loss of a few million pounds in intellectual property rights could be compensated for if a factory could be established in this country to produce goods as a result of acquiring the intellectual property rights.
I also wish to mention the Treasury rules, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. They can be inflexible. It seems to be a case of taking from one pocket and putting into another. The Treasury can push for more stringent controls of the Defence Research Agency. However, it is a publicly funded company, and if it can be shown that reducing the Treasury rate of return would benefit the country, I do not believe that one should necessarily have to stick to the 6 per cent. figure, which is an artificial creation.
I wish to end by considering the role of stability. I shall quote from the Defence Research Agency report and the statement of the chief executive, Mr. John Chisholm:
"After two years of preparation, 1993/94 saw the Defence Research Agency launched as a fully trading organisation. It has proved a daunting but so far successful task. The mechanics of making an enterprise of more than 10,000 highly skilled individuals into a disciplined trading entity were sufficiently challenging in themselves; to achieve that transformation while retaining the focus4 and innovation from DRA's staff has been a rare and important task. Despite many difficulties, some of them relatively major, that task has been by and large accomplished".
There have been massive changes in the Defence Research Agency. I wish to mirror some of the views that have been expressed already by stating that I believe a period of time needs to be set aside to see what effect those changes have had. It would seem to me to be short-sighted to try to attempt major changes in the short term. I believe that a period of stability of perhaps more than two or four years —perhaps six or eight years—should be instituted so that the effects of these
1070
changes can be seen. Then, if any further changes are necessary, they can be implemented with the benefit of wisdom.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by extending the apologies of my noble friend Lord Williams, who, as the Minister will know, takes a keen interest in these matters but is unfortunately unable to be here. However, that provided me with the opportunity —in fact the necessity—to do a bit more reading than I might otherwise have done. I must confess that I am an ex-Royal Marine, corporal PLY X112 105, 1943. Ever since then I have taken an interest in defence matters and, on behalf of my party, I have spoken on defence matters from time to time in the past. Therefore it was a pleasure for me to have to do the necessary reading to equip myself for this debate.
I share the commendations of all of us not only to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, but also to members of his Committee. The Minister normally expresses his gratitude to those colleagues in the House who have served him and the House. He will want to say how grateful we all are to the Committee not merely because it has done a thoroughly worthwhile job but also because it has given the Minister an opportunity to comment on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the Ministry's response. There is no need for me to go over the report when the Minister will no doubt do that. If what we have in the report is the response from the Government, that will be the response that we are given from the Government Minister. The debate provides us with an opportunity to state our views before we hear the Minister's response. I certainly hope that he can give a more encouraging response than some previous responses have been. What we have here is an impressive document which has been painstakingly—but I believe expertly and dispassionately—assembled. One hears a great deal about interests, for example Members' interests and declarable interests. "Vested interest" are certainly not dirty words to me.
There has been an impressive investigation into a national asset. Those of us who have been in the House and in politics for a long time, and indeed those individuals whose careers are at stake, recognise that there has been a revolution both in the management and the structure of many hitherto well-established public services. Therefore, I do not believe that there will be any argument about the need for a review.
I listened carefully to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. He not only told us what is right with the report. He impressed me with the fact that not only had he read the report but he had analysed it, and he presented his ideas on how it could be improved. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and his committee, will be grateful for that, because it is all grist to the mill.
However, I wish to emphasise immediately a view contrary to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The Government and the Minister have stated repeatedly that they have no plans at present to privatise the industry. The noble Lord nevertheless took the opportunity to say that while he accepted that for the

1071
moment, perhaps in two, three or four years' time the question should be revisited. I hesitate to believe that an organisation which has been in turmoil and suffered trauma over the past few years will welcome the fact that, as it is getting to grips with a new role, it can look forward to its entrails being examined yet again in two, three or four years' time. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be a little more kind to those whose careers are affected and will say that, in the context of the changes, he and his colleagues fully expect the new arrangements to be a success. If they are not successful, then of course the Minister and his colleagues will consider alternatives.
I was very impressed to learn that the DRA is not merely defence oriented or an organisation with a defence capability. There are a number of ways in which an organisation which is established for a limited purpose may develop expertise and then may become a competitor. I understand the delicacy of that situation. There may be resentment. However, I see nothing wrong in a mix of civil and public resources and businesses if it produces a good match. I am very encouraged by that aspect of the report.
Recommendation 4.24 on page 32 states:
"We consider that Treasury rules place an unnecessarily high burden upon DRA. The current target rates of return appear unrealistic, and we consider that DRA should be able to charge customers at marginal costs where appropriate; to do otherwise would place the future of many unique and vital facilities in the United Kingdom in jeopardy".
The committee has had the benefit of hearing the witnesses and questioning them. They have used their great expertise, and their political nous. If it is their view that the present rules could place many unique and vital facilities in the United Kingdom in jeopardy, I should like the Minister either to put that in context or to reassure those who are affected. It would be a nonsense if that were to happen in pursuit of dogma. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also mentioned that point.
It would be in the national interest if there were an understanding or some flexibility in these matters. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said that before many more scientists are made redundant and before there is a loss of more unique facilities, one ought to pause and reflect on whether that is necessary. He also said that one must tecognise that in the context of the defence of the realm we do not want to find ourselves in a few years' time in a position in which either those facilities have to be recreated or we have to obtain the facilities from other agencies, not only in this country but from abroad.
One of my complaints about this Government is that far too often, in a cavalier fashion, they will sell facilities of this kind in order to boost the Exchequer and provide opportunities for tax cuts. I come from the Enfield and Edmonton area. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was the Minister at the time of the sale of the ordnance factories. I find it astounding that the Government keep so few of their eggs in the basket of public ownership. I believe that selling our assets in that way is completely wrong.
Therefore I should be grateful if the Minister could give some reassurance in respect of stability.
1072
In paragraph 5.6 on page 33 the committee recommends that the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser should be:
"specifically empowered to expose any practices which impede closer links between civil and military science and technology".
Perhaps the Minister or the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, can tell us what they have in mind which may cause them to worry about practices which impede such closer links. Are we talking in terms of civil servants and those who guide them resisting the possibility of moving into the civil field? Are we talking in terms of a fight to the last ditch? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, impressed me with the need to be flexible in these matters. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister or the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, could reassure me. I believe that we need a mix of establishments and expertise linking civil and military science.
I was very impressed by the remark in the government report dealing with the need for the DRA to
"seek work from other government departments, some of which have research budgets significantly greater than the MoD's, as well as from the private sector".
Will the Minister indicate to what extent there is co-ordination at government level to ensure that initiatives are not inhibited due to vested interests in other departments?
Perhaps I may give an example from my own experience. A colleague of mine worked for the Coal Board. He was in charge of a body called Minestone Executive, whose function was to sell colliery spoil. That was useful for aggregate. It was not first-class aggregate but second-class aggregate which could be used in, for example, road building. An organisation which was nationally owned had difficulty in selling its product because contracts existed between other departments and other contractors which were not owned by the nation. There was clearly a commercial nexus.
Therefore, I should like the Minister, when he replies, to pay particular attention to paragraph 9 on page 2 of the government report and assure us that the facilities and expertise which rest in the agency are capable of being used by others without too much difficulty.
I was reassured by the words of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I noted the reference in the report to the decline in DTI funding. The noble Earl seemed to lay great store on an alternative, secondary source of funding. Perhaps he may say when he replies how he is assured that money is available from that other source.
Reference has been made to short termism, a subject of which the Minister is well aware. We are talking about a vital public interest in every sense of the word. The Minister and I will differ on our attitudes in general to the public and private sectors. However, I believe that the DRA needs to be protected. The agency must not disintegrate for short-term reasons, with parts of it sold off. Five thousand scientists and many other employees who serve the nation well are involved.

1073
I had intended to say how useful the report is for people such as myself. I read it with a great deal of interest. However, perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and others that paragraph 2.22 on page 17 almost put me off. It states:
"DRA already seeks European (EC and non-EC) collaboration, involving itself in EC Framework Programme projects and in EUCLID, BRITE/EURAM, ESPRIT, SCIENCE, and MAST".
We are supposed to understand that. It seems gobbledegook. The report is full of initials. This report clearly has a great value to those people who prepared it; they will use it. But it could be improved if so many initials were not used. However, the House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and to those who contributed to the report. On this side of the Chamber, we pay a warm tribute to their work and look forward to the continuation of the valuable national service given by those men and women.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip says that we often differ, and he is certainly right. However, there is one matter on which I am in full agreement with him: it is regarding the problems with and frequency of acronyms. As one who has only recently come to the Ministry of Defence, I am having great difficulties in getting to know and understand the vast number of acronyms which proliferate in that department.
I had also hoped on this occasion to be able to agree with the noble Lord on one other matter. He, like me, always welcomes brevity in speeches. I had thought for the first time ever that I would be able to congratulate every speaker in an untimed debate on keeping their speeches to within 10 minutes. However, the noble Lord himself broke that rule. I shall seek to keep within 10 minutes myself; but I do not know whether I can. I shall certainly not respond at the same length as our response which was published last week, to which other noble Lords have referred.
I start by extending my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for calling this debate on the Select Committee's report and offering my thanks to him, the members of the committee and its staff for their work in producing the report. I wish to say how grateful I am for the tribute that he paid to the Defence Research Agency and the excellence of its work.
As the House is aware, the publication of the committee's report coincided with the publication of our own report, Front Line First, which included a proposal to enlarge the DRA. We have been engaged in considering that proposal. As I have already mentioned, our response to the Select Committee's report was published this week.
I think that I would reject the allegations from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver—for whom I have the greatest respect—that the report was complacent. I rest to some extent on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who welcomed the report. I hope that he will offer a similar welcome to other announcements that my department may make from time to time.
1074
We value the scrutiny given by the Select Committee to the DRA's role in the relationship between the agency and the department. We are pleased that the committee speaks highly of the DRA management and staff to the extent that it considers achievable the DRA's aim for international pre-eminence. We were disappointed, however, that similar acknowledgement was not given to the efforts made within my department to develop that relationship. The DRA is our principal scientific and technical knowledge base, and as its principle customer my department uses the trading fund regime to derive the best value for money from that knowledge base for the taxpayer's benefit. This will be even more the case when the trading fund is enlarged, and new streamlined procedures governing our relationship will help the DRA to plan ahead and improve the cost-effectiveness of the research programme.
The relationship between the DRA and its MoD customers is one of a trusted partnership in which the DRA has substantial knowledge of our future equipment needs and joins with us in planning the research programme. The Front Line First proposals on the restructuring of the MoD research programme into corporate research and contract research will allow us and the DRA to build a more coherent research programme to the benefit of my department and the wider economy.
Obviously I understand the committee's call—it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley—for a period of consolidation and stability in the DRA's affairs. I have to say that there was no case to exempt the DRA from the rigours of the Defence Costs Study which looked at all aspects of support to the front line. We are determined to drive down costs to the taxpayer. The broad framework of the DRA structure and operating processes will remain in place.
The proposal in Front Line First, as my noble friend Lord Selborne, made clear, is to bring together the DRA, the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, the Defence Operational Analysis Centre, the Director of Test and Evaluation, and other MoD scientific staff into a single, enlarged executive agency. This will enhance the ability of those organisations to meet, through the existing trading fund, the demands placed on them by my department. The proposal in principle has been the subject of consultation with the trade unions and nothing in the comments received on the consultative document leads us to believe that it is not right to go ahead and prepare to launch the enlarged agency on 1st April next year. Nor do I believe that that will affect the stability of the DRA.
No evidence has been presented in favour of privatising the DRA—a matter to which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred. The Front Line First report—I believe that my noble friend mentioned it—specifically recommended that it should not be a candidate for privatisation. Indeed, in his evidence to the committee, the then Minister for Defence Procurement, my right honourable friend Mr. Jonathan Aitken urged caution in the light of our international commitments. However, I can assure my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that those are matters which should be and will be kept under review.

1075
Should it be a suitable candidate for privatisation in the future, that is certainly a matter that we can look to. However, I must express the caution that my right honourable friend expressed in his evidence to the committee: that it is certainly not a matter for the immediate or foreseeable future.
We welcome the importance that the committee attaches to the wealth-creating activity of the DRA. Last year's White Paper on science, engineering and technology, Realising Our Potential, emphasised the Government's commitment to harnessing all publicly funded science and technology more effectively to support wealth creation and improve the quality of life. The DRA has an important role in delivering our increased efforts to realise the wealth creation potential of its research and development activities. I can give an assurance to the House that the DRA is working closely with both the Office of Science and Technology and the DTI to take forward its wealth creation initiatives. The exchange of information with the civil sector is an important part of that process.
We rejected the idea that was advocated in the report and repeated both by my noble friend and by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Lord Carver went on to suggest looking at the German solution to these problems. Certainly, again, as someone who is new to the department that is something—without making any commitments—that I would be more than willing to do. As I said, we rejected the idea in the report that the Office of Science and Technology and the DTI should share in ownership of the DRA, as that would undermine ministerial accountability without creating any clear benefits.
However, my department will invite the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir William Stewart, to become an external member of the Defence Research Agency Council.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about the Treasury rules that were referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. We reject the contention that such rules place an unnecessarily high burden on the DRA. The present 6 per cent. target rate of return set by the Secretary of State as owner of the DRA is the same risk-free rate that applies across similar Government trading funds and provides the necessary commercial discipline. The DRA is free to charge what it considers appropriate for its facilities provided that it does not disadvantage the Ministry of Defence. It is merely constrained by the willingness and ability of its customers collectively to pay the full cost. I do not accept the noble and gallant Lord's arguments that those are contradictory. Nor do I accept the argument that those impose excessive constraints.
We also consider that the—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder if I may intervene. I hope my noble friend understands that the views to which he just referred and rejected so firmly were held almost universally throughout the committee, not just by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig.
Lord Henley: Obviously, my Lords, I take note particularly of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord
1076
Craig, said, and also of what the committee said. If my noble friend—a former colleague on this Front Bench—also forcefully makes those remarks, I will take even greater note of them. I am afraid, however, that I do not accept the arguments that have been put forward. I hope that my noble friend will therefore bear with me in that respect.
We also consider that the present arrangements provide sufficient commercial freedom for the DRA to contribute to the activities of British industry more widely. The important issue is for the DRA to use these effectively without affecting its capacity to meet the needs of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. The "trusted partnership" allows the agency to identify how the research programme might be modified to meet its wider remit while still meeting the MoD's needs.
In conclusion, perhaps I may remind the House that the Ministry of Defence is concerned first with defence objectives. That is our prime role. We require that the DRA should support that objective. However, such a mutually beneficial relationship does not rule out a wider remit for the agency, and we believe that within the overall defence framework it is possible for the DRA to operate flexibly and to make a very real contribution to the wider role of wealth creation. These are objectives that this Government support, and we shall continue to encourage in what has undoubtedly become a flagship among agencies for service delivery and efficiency.
7.23 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to what I have found to be a very interesting debate, and I thank particularly my noble friend the Minister for his contribution and for the government response to our report.
Perhaps I may very briefly—because indeed the brevity of the speeches throughout this debate has been exemplary—make two or three points. In his stimulating contribution, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to the German model. I think the committee would have had a lot of sympathy with that had we produced the report in 1991 or thereabouts. Instead, we are looking at the DRA four years into its existence, and that is very different. If the radical solution of which the noble and gallant Lord urges at least consideration and which he feels we should have looked at more carefully had been the answer, it should have been an answer four years ago, not now. We looked very carefully at the quality of the science and the need to try to ensure that that science delivers relevant research, particularly for its own purposes and the Ministry of Defence. We were not sure that yet another uprooting would be helpful.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred to the issue of privatisation and seemed to imply that there was a self-denying ordinance on the committee not to look at this issue. That is far from the case. A number of people gave evidence on the ownership of the agency, and that was mainly in terms of whether it should remain in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence. Our terms of reference were as wide as you like: we were simply conducting an inquiry into the Defence Research Agency. This is very much a case of the dog that did not bark. Very few people referred to privatisation—

1077
although it is true that the Minister himself did so. And Sir Peter Kemp in his written evidence reminded us that at the time when the DRA was created privatisation had been quite a live issue. However, throughout all the written evidence that we received—and it was a large amount—there simply was no request for privatisation. That is why we did not take that line of inquiry very far.
Lastly, a very forceful and valid point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, when he referred politely to the "Alphabet soup" throughout this report. I refer the noble Lord to page 41 where, I am horrified to count, the number of acronyms comes to 60. I am afraid that that is the culture in which the Ministry of Defence lives. The noble Lord will remember from his days in the services just how widespread initials were, and they remain so. All I can say is that he read out to great effect one particularly awful paragraph. However, if he looks, for instance, at what SCIENCE (which you would think was a perfectly good word) really means—it is referred to on page 41—he will
1078
realise that in real life it is even worse than as an acronym, so perhaps we were wise to keep to the acronym in that respect.
The noble Lord asked me to refer to another point, and perhaps with your Lordships' indulgence I may briefly do so. If the DTI is not funding the research establishments within the Defence Research Agency as much as we would wish—and it is not—we look then to the Office of Science and Technology. The problem with the Office of Science and Technology is that it does not have the money. Nevertheless, it was set up two (or is it three?) years ago with the remit to try to co-ordinate research throughout government. We believe that there is a job to be done. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend the Minister said. I still believe that perhaps his ministry and the Office of Science and Technology could look carefully at this point. I therefore obviously welcome the appointment of Sir William Stewart to which my noble friend referred.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  IRAQ: TROOP DEPLOYMENTS
  IRAQ: TROOP DEPLOYMENTS
  UKRAINE: ACCESSION TO NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  UKRAINE: ACCESSION TO NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  UKRAINE: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  UKRAINE: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  NON-NUCLEAR STATES: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  NON-NUCLEAR STATES: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  US NUCLEAR WEAPONS: REMOVAL FROM SOUTH KOREA
  US NUCLEAR WEAPONS: REMOVAL FROM SOUTH KOREA
  RWANDA: EU AID
  RWANDA: EU AID
  EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1991: REVIEW REPORT
  EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1991: REVIEW REPORT
  MARRIED QUARTERS ESTATE: PRIVATISATION STUDY
  MARRIED QUARTERS ESTATE: PRIVATISATION STUDY
  OPERATION GRANBY: PROTECTION AGAINST BOTULINUM
  OPERATION GRANBY: PROTECTION AGAINST BOTULINUM
  FUMING NITRIC ACID
  FUMING NITRIC ACID
  MUSTARD GAS
  MUSTARD GAS
  PROTECTIVE VACCINES AND DRUGS: REFUSAL BY SERVICE PERSONNEL
  PROTECTIVE VACCINES AND DRUGS: REFUSAL BY SERVICE PERSONNEL
  STUDENT LOANS
  STUDENT LOANS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS: UNAUTHORISED PURCHASERS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS: UNAUTHORISED PURCHASERS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS: ADVERSE REACTIONS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS: ADVERSE REACTIONS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDE AND HERBICIDES: LOWLEVEL EXPOSURE
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDE AND HERBICIDES: LOWLEVEL EXPOSURE
  SHEEP ANNUAL PREMIUM AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS SCHEMES
  SHEEP ANNUAL PREMIUM AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS SCHEMES
  NATIONAL LOTTERY
  NATIONAL LOTTERY